Hufschmid's main page
Page for this series
Philosophy page

Creating a better society

Part 7:
Concepts for a New Society

  15 September 2012


Find your pioneer spirit!
We need to understand our emotions
We need standards for intelligence
We need population quality control
We need to eliminate nations
Concepts for a new economy
Concepts for a new government
Concepts for voters and candidates

Have you found your pioneer spirit yet?
Are you willing to emigrate to another planet?
Imagine we discovered a different but beautiful planet in a nearby solar system, and a private business develops a fleet of spaceships that can take us to that planet. Would you consider leaving the Earth forever to start a new life on that planet?

Although this is an unrealistic scenario, people have encountered variations of this scenario many times throughout history. For example, in the late 1800s, my ancestors from Denmark, Italy, and Switzerland made the decision to leave their homes and travel to America. They realized that they were going to learn a different language, learn some different customs and foods, and encounter a lot of strangers. They realized that they would no longer be Danish, Italian, or Swiss. They were going to become "Americans". They were willing to abandon their ancestors, their parents, their relatives, their language, their nationality, their neighbors, their customs, and everything else that they were familiar with.

It's important to note that some of the immigrants to America came in groups, and they created neighborhoods or entire towns in which they retained some of their culture. For example, there are some neighborhoods that are preserving Chinese, Irish, German, or French foods, clothing styles, and holiday celebrations. Although they have a few different customs, they blend into American society because they consider themselves to be "Americans", and they consider the rest of us to be part of their team.

However, some of the immigrants refuse to truly join American society, such as the Amish; the immigrants who refuse to learn English; and the Jews who consider themselves to be "Jews" rather than Americans. They treat us as enemy tribes, not as team members.

What would you recommend for a new planet?

Some of you might benefit by spending some time imagining yourself getting into a spaceship and traveling to another planet to start a new life. Imagine yourself and thousands of other people from America, Japan, Korea, and other nations stepping out of the spaceships onto another planet. What would your recommendations be for this new planet? Would you suggest that the planet be divided up into nations that match those on the Earth as closely as possible? Would you recommend that each person retain his passport and nationality, and try to re-create his particular nation so that this new planet becomes an imitation of the Earth?

I think it would be senseless to start a new life on a new planet if all we do is we re-create the life that we already have here on the Earth. If we are not going to experiment with a better life for ourselves, why bother to leave the Earth?

The people who travel to a new planet should have the same attitude as the immigrants to America. They should be willing to abandon their relatives, ancestors, language, and culture. They should be willing to meet strangers and form new friendships. They should be willing to experiment with a new government and new culture. When they arrive on the new planet, they should cease to be Irish, Italian, and Chinese. They should become "humans".

It would be acceptable for the different groups to form their own cities and develop their own foods and clothing styles, but it should be obvious that in order for life on this planet to be noticeably better than that of the Earth, everybody should agree to be a team member of just one, united world with just one government, and that everybody should phase in a common language, measurement system, number system, monetary system, and economic system.

The history of America can provide us with a lot of important lessons on what people should and should not do when they are creating a new society. One lesson is that we can see that children had a very easy time learning a new language and adapting to new culture, but the adults had to push themselves. However, our history shows us that some people had no desire to become a "team member" of a new nation. They immigrated to America only for jobs, or to get away from the police, or to escape ridicule. They were not "joining" America. Rather, they were "escaping" from their society. America shows us that membership in a society should be by invitation only, just as we see with businesses, sports teams, orchestras, and other organizations.

How many people can experiment with their culture?

We cannot travel to another planet, but we have the option of creating a better nation for ourselves. If enough people in other nations are also interested, we could create a better world for everybody. However, creating a better world requires people who are willing to experiment with a new culture. They have to be willing to abandon some of their existing culture. How many people are capable of that? How many people are capable of regarding the people of other races and nationalities as "team members"? The Amish are not, and neither are many Jews. How about you? Are you willing to abandon any of your culture, meet new people, and make new friends?

Take a look at the people in Ireland and Wales. Many of them are struggling to keep their particular prehistoric language active. There are people in America who are refusing to switch to the metric system. There are people in France who are trying to stop the French people from using foreign words. How many of those people would be capable of creating a better world?

Every nation's culture and language is crude and needs to be improved. Unfortunately, most people have no interest in improving their social technology, and some people put up serious resistance to improvements. For example, the people who are promoting the Gaelic language are not merely resisting changes; rather, they are fighting the changes. If those particular people were to travel to a new planet, they would not work with or cooperate with other people to create a better world. They would not become team members of that new planet. Rather, they would isolate themselves from everybody else and try to re-create some idiotic fantasy in which they follow a prehistoric language and culture.

Likewise, there are Americans who not only ignore the metric system, they actively resist it and criticize it. If those particular Americans were to travel to a new planet, they would also isolate themselves and resist attempts to form a more compatible world. They are not willing to phase in a common measurement system.

The Internet is allowing us to see the corruption and abuse that we have been suffering from for thousands of years. We can use the information that we are learning to create a new world. We are essentially at a point in time in which spaceships are sitting on our airports, and their doors are open, and they are offering us a free ride to a new planet. We can get on one of those spaceships, but when we arrive at the new planet, we should stop being Irish, Catholic, French, or American. We should become "humans".

It might help you to understand this concept if you imagine a more extreme example. Imagine discovering a tribe of people in some remote area of the Amazon basin that is maintaining the language, facial expressions, and body expressions of their rat-like ancestors from millions of years ago. And imagine that they also maintain the rat custom of eating their babies when there are shortages of food. Furthermore, imagine that they eat their babies while the babies are alive. When you suggest to them that they kill their babies before eating them, they respond that it is customary to eat babies alive; they tell you that their ancestors have been doing this for millions of years.

What is a difference between a primitive tribe in the Amazon maintaining the grunts and squeals of their rat-like ancestors and the people who are maintaining some prehistoric version of Gaelic or Chinese languages? What is the difference between a primitive tribe in the Amazon who is maintaining the custom of eating their babies alive and the Americans who insist on maintaining the Imperial measurement system? How many more centuries are the Americans going to do this?

Animals do not think, and they do not want to experiment. They want to follow the established procedures over and over. The human race has to become better than animals. The humans who behave like animals are a ball and chain around our leg. They are inhibiting progress.

It is acceptable for different groups of people to live in physically separated cities and develop their own foods, clothing styles, and holiday celebrations, but the different groups of people need to become much more cooperative. All people of the world should be "humans". We should be "team members" and "friends". We need to find people with a "pioneer spirit". We need people who can turn their backs on their nationalities, relatives, ancestors, culture, language, and neighbors and get together with strangers from around the world to experiment with a new life.

Are we traitors if we create a new society?

When people like me suggest a new government, we are often regarded as traitors, rebels, or insurgents who advocate overthrowing the government. Life is however you want to look at it. I would say that America was overthrown in 1781 when the Articles of Confederation was discarded and the Constitution was created. I would say that during the following centuries, a gigantic, Jewish crime network has slowly taken control of America. Those Jews have overthrown the American government and have taken control of of our media, banking system, legal system, government, school system, publishing companies, Hollywood, news agencies, military, and most everything else. I would say that the American government has already been overthrown twice.

Furthermore, after the Civil War, significant changes were made to America to give the federal government more authority and make the states less independent, and we could describe those changes as a major revision of the American government, or a small rebellion, or a minor overthrow.

When executives suggest making changes to their business, other executives listen to their suggestions; they do not accuse them of being a rebel, insurgent, or traitor. All of our organizations are unstable, and the larger they are, the more they change through time. No nation or business remains exactly as it was when it was first created. They are always changing. Only the stupid and ignorant people believe that a nation can remain the same century after century.

America is like a business that has become so infiltrated with criminals, pedophiles, and incompetent managers that there is no point in trying to fix it. America can be visualized as a garden that has become completely overgrown with weeds. People who advocate discarding this government and starting over are analogous to a gardener who is suggesting that the weeds are so pervasive that it is best to tear up the entire garden and start over rather than try to pull out the weeds.

It's also interesting to consider the issue of who America belongs to. Thousands of years ago, the different tribes of Native Americans were fighting over the land. Does any part of America today belong to any of the descendants of those original, Native Americans? If they were to get control of this land, would they be overthrowing America, or would they be freedom fighters who are liberating themselves from oppressors and regaining their homeland?

America was created in the 1700s by people primarily from England, and my impression of them is that they were - as a group - the lower quality of the English population. They were substandard people; they were below average. By about 1850, people from other European nations began immigrating into America in increasingly larger numbers. My impression of them is that they were better quality, as a group, than those original misfits from England. They had more technical skills, more intelligence, fewer problems with alcohol, and a greater sense of responsibility. I would say that they inadvertently began dominating the nation. I would say that those immigrants of the late 1800s inadvertently and unknowingly conquered America.

Today we find Mexicans, Chinese, and other races starting to dominate parts of America, and if they get control, then America will belong to them. Or, if people who want to try my suggestions get control of America, then America will belong to us. I would say that America has already been conquered a few different times by different groups of people, and I would say that the conquering is not over yet. We are fools to be passive sheep and let this chaotic process continue on its own. We are fools to wonder which group of people will be the next to gain control of this land. We should decide what we want our future to be and take control of our destiny.

People who follow traditions don't truly follow them
All around the world we find people struggling to maintain and promote traditions that developed centuries earlier. These people claim to enjoy the old-fashioned traditions, but in many cases, perhaps all cases, they actually improve upon the old traditions rather than follow them exactly. Consider the Japanese who promote some of their old clothing styles. They are not actually duplicating the clothing that was developed centuries earlier. They actually have a modern version of the old clothing.

Until recently, all clothing of every society was made of crude threads that was woven into rough fabrics, and the clothing didn't fit very well because of the difficulty in cutting fabric and sewing the pieces together. Furthermore, the lack of buttons, zippers, Velcro, and other fastening devices caused a lot of the early clothing to be essentially bathrobes. They were loose fitting sheets of fabric held together by crude strings.

The Japanese who promote the traditional clothing are not truly interested in creating the original, crude clothing. Rather, they want an improved version of it; they want a modern version. The photo below shows some traditional Japanese clothing, but they are not really the same as the originals. These modern versions are made of much softer fabrics, and the dyes are more colorful and stable. The edges of the clothing are also much higher quality. The only two aspects of this clothing that we could say are truly traditional are 1) they are in the bathrobe style, and 2) they are using older decorations.

The Japanese are fooling themselves when they claim that these modern versions of traditional clothing are preserving old customs. They are actually creating modern versions of old clothing. While the decorations are attractive, the bathrobe style is impractical for most purposes. It would make more sense for them to go a bit further and abandon the bathrobe style and use buttons, zippers, and other fastening devices so that this traditional clothing can become practical.

Virtually everybody who promotes old traditions is actually promoting modern versions of those traditions. They do not want to truly re-create the original traditions exactly. They are improving upon the culture of the past, but they are too naive to realize it.

We can also see this situation with religion. There are millions of Christians around the world who claim to be following the Bible, but they don't really follow the Bible. Most of them have never read the Bible. As they grew up, they were exposed to different aspects of different religions, and they kept the aspects they liked, disregarded the others, and modified some of them. They are fools to think that they are following the Christian religion or the Bible. Each of them is actually following their own unique variation of Christianity that they created just for themselves.

This same concept is occurring to all of the people who promote a language. There are people in France, China, Wales, Ireland, and other areas trying to preserve their original language, but in reality they are preserving just one variation of their language from one moment in time. Every language is constantly changing, so it makes no sense for anybody to claim that they are preserving their "original" language. There is no such thing as an original language. There is only a language at one moment in time. Those people are as foolish as somebody who extracts one frame from a long video and claims that he is preserving the video by preserving that individual frame.

In regards to language, some French people would be very upset if they had to phase in a different language and abandon French. However, the French language is continuously being abandoned and evolving into something different. Furthermore, a lot of French people have emigrated to other nations, and both they and their children had to learn a different language, but none of them showed any signs of suffering.

Our culture is in a constant state of change. The people who promote clinging to traditions are foolishly inhibiting progress, and to make the situation even more absurd, they don't really want the old culture! They want an improved version of it.

Some people today have kerosene lamps, or they ride horses, or they burn candles, and some of them might think of themselves as following a tradition that is centuries old, but the saddles and other equipment that we use with horses today are a modern version of whatever they had during the Middle Ages. The candles of today are also higher quality. Nobody wants to ride a horse with medieval technology, and we don't want their kerosene lamps, either. Their kerosene lamps were terrible, and their kerosene was lower quality, also. We don't want the old technology. We want modern versions of it.

I have no objection to the Japanese making improved versions of their primitive clothing styles. Actually, I think the Japanese men would look much better if they were wearing more decorative clothing compared to the drab suit and tie. I am not suggesting that we abandon everything that our ancestors have done. I am simply pointing out that we don't really want their original creations. We want improved versions of them. Our goal should be to improve upon the life of earlier generations, not fool ourselves into thinking that we are maintaining their primitive culture.

We should stop promoting the philosophy of preserving traditions. There may be a few primitive tribes who are truly preserving traditions, but nobody in a modern nation wants to truly preserve traditions. We want improved versions.

We cannot hurt ourselves by trying to improve life

Our natural tendency is to be afraid of change, but we will not hurt ourselves by changing our government. We would have to be incredibly stupid to create a government that is worse than what we already have. Some people will point out that when Russia brought in communism, there was widespread suffering and death, but take a look at the evidence that communism was coming from the same network of Jews that is responsible for the world wars and the 9/11 attack. The lesson to learn from Russia is to keep those Jews out of our lives.

People have formed businesses, nations, orchestras, and sports teams for thousands of years, but nobody has hurt themselves in the process. Some of the businesses have not been successful, and all nations have problems, but people do not hurt themselves as they try to create a better organization. If a business fails, you just get another job or start another business. If a nation has problems, you do something to correct it. There is nothing to fear.

Which futuristic fantasies appeal to you?

I am just one of many people who has been complaining about governments, crime, and the crude behavior of the sheeple. Unfortunately, the people who want to change the world have incompatible proposals. For example, I promote phasing in one common language over a span of a few generations, but there are other people who propose every society keep their language and all of us become multilingual. There are some people proposing that we deal with crime by providing guns to citizens, and there are people like me who want to evict criminals, even if they are women or children, so that nobody needs to carry any type of weapon for protection.

With so many people making so many incompatible proposals, how is the world going to improve? How do we decide which proposal will be implemented? Who among us will make the decisions on the future course of the human race?

The future of the human race will be decided the same as it is for all of the animals and plants. Specifically, our future will be set by the chaotic battle for control that all people are involved with. Most people do not realize it, but everybody in the world is involved in a battle for dominance. Religious people around the world are pushing their particular religion, for example, and other people are pushing their particular views on crime, abortion, and immigration. There are organized crime networks that are working as teams to alter the world, and other people are working as individuals.

Animals do not think of themselves as fighting to set the future course for their species, but they do so inadvertently simply by trying to survive. Likewise, people are inadvertently setting our future. As they go through their daily lives they inadvertently cause some ideas to be promoted, others to vanish, and others to be modified. They cause some nations to grow in size, others to shrink, and others to disappear completely.

The majority of people are not consciously trying to alter the future of the human race. They merely exist from one day to the next, just like an animal. They are not contemplating the different proposals for the future, or discussing these issues among themselves. However, their behavior is influencing the future indirectly. Even the people who are apathetic are inadvertently helping determine our future.

A good example is that the Jewish crime network has taken over America because most people either didn't know about its existence, or they didn't bother trying to expose or stop it. Those ignorant and apathetic people do not think of themselves as having much influence over America, and as individuals they do not have much influence, but there are so many of them that they have been dominating America inadvertently, thereby allowing the Jews to get control of the nation. Those ignorant and apathetic Americans have so much control over our nation that it has taken years for those of us who are fighting this network to get to where we are today, and we are still not finished. It's also important to note that those ignorant people are going to continue exerting a lot of influence over the world and our future.

Our future depends upon the actions of billions of people all over the world. Some people have more influence than others, but everybody has some influence. Furthermore, the people who are working in teams will have more influence than the people who are working as individuals. The Jews are working in teams, but how many of the people who oppose the Jews have the ability to work in teams? And how many people are smart enough to figure out when their teams have been infiltrated by the Jews? How many of them will notice and avoid all of the different variations of Jewish propaganda?

The future of the human race would be easier to predict if there was only one Jewish crime network and only one group fighting them, but there are differences between the Jews in regards to the future of the human race and how they should achieve their goals. The people who are fighting the Jews also have differences in regards to what they want the future of the world to be. Which group or groups will end up dominating?

You might wonder if the world will remain as it is today; specifically, that no groups gets control of the world, thereby causing this battle to continue century after century. However, I don't think that this battle can continue forever because the world is headed towards a genetic disaster. Already about half the population is too stupid, sickly, or mentally ill to function properly in this modern world, and it's going to get even worse in the future if something doesn't change. Every year more of these hopeless people end up on welfare, in the government, in crime networks, or married to somebody who can take care of them. This sad situation cannot continue forever. Life cannot remain the same while the humans degrade into criminals, retards, parasites, and idiots. Something has to change eventually.

The people who form teams and actively get involved in changing the future will have the most influence over it. The future depends upon their talents. It will depend upon their ability to analyze proposals and people, avoid deception and propaganda, and compromise on issues.

For example, consider the Venus Project. I have not analyzed it to any significant extent because, as I mentioned here years ago, after skimming over a few of its documents, I came to the conclusion that the it was just another variation of Marxism. Although it promotes some of the same concepts that I promote, such as ending nationalism so that people around the world are more united, it is vague and suspicious. For example, I skimmed through their FAQ, and question 65 makes me suspect that the Venus Project is actually just another scam by the Jews to take control of the world:
65. Who makes the decisions in a resource based economy?

No one does. The process of arriving at decisions in this economy would not be based upon the opinions of politicians, corporate, or national interests but rather all decisions would be arrived at based upon the introduction of newer technologies and Earth's carrying capacity. Computers could provide this information with electronic sensors throughout the entire industrial, physical complex to arrive at more appropriate decisions.

That answer is vague and confusing, and as I pointed out years ago here, whenever you find yourself unable to understand somebody, don't assume it is because you are too stupid to understand their brilliant ideas. Instead, assume that they are too stupid to explain themselves properly, or they are trying to deceive you. In the case of FAQ 65, there is a confusing paragraph in a book written by the creator of the Venus Project that might explain it:
As artificial intelligence develops, machines will be assigned complex decision-making tasks in industrial, military, and governmental affairs. This would not imply a take-over by machines. Instead it would be a gradual transfer of decision-making process to machine intelligence as the next phase of social evolution.
- The Best That Money Can't Buy Beyond Politics, Poverty, & War, By Jacque Fresco, page 46
I think the people behind the Venus Project are trying to fool us into believing that computers will soon have the intelligence necessary to make decisions for us, and that would allow the Jews to set up a "Wizard of Oz" scenario in which a magic computer is in control of our government, businesses, and military, and we are following the orders of a computer, when in reality the Jews are making decisions. It's a variation of the Jewish "alien scam" in which friendly, intelligent aliens arrive on the Earth and offer to take control of the world and provide us with their superior guidance. Those aliens would tell us to destroy our weapons and follow their orders. In reality, those aliens would be Jews.

The Jews also frequently promote the concept of a leaderless society in which everybody is free to do as they please and nobody is in control of anybody. The Jews claim that the society will function properly simply because everybody will love one another. For example, the Jews who dominate the 9/11 truth movement promote a leaderless truth movement, and the participants of the Occupy Wall Street protests were insisting that nobody was in control of their protests, and that they didn't want or need leadership. The concept of a leaderless nation is just a trick that allows the Jews to secretly get control of us. It is impossible for large organizations to exist without leadership. They want you and I to be leaderless while they work in a team.

In FAQ 65, we are told that no one would make decisions; rather, decisions would be "arrived at". The Jews fool people with words. The Jews want to get control of us, but they will not refer to themselves as dictators or leaders. Instead, they refer to themselves as representatives, advisers, or administrators. The Jews would not "make" decisions, or "give us orders". Rather, they would "arrive at" decisions that are "appropriate".

The Jews cannot impress us with their intelligence, so they use tricks, blackmail, bribery, murder, and propaganda to get control of us and suppress their competitors. Will enough people in the world be able to see through their tricks? Or will the Jews eventually succeed in creating a leaderless society in which we all love one another?

The Jews send out email messages to lots of people, including my mother, who sometimes forwards them to me. Many of these messages encourage us to make lemonade from lemons, as in the box below, or to be proud of our freedoms, such as the recent video she sent me, "puttin up the flag". Or, do you think I am incorrect for referring to these as Jewish propaganda?

My mother frequently receives email of "inspiring" messages. Some are slideshows with beautiful photographs, and others are lists of quotes or suggestions. I think Jews are spreading these messages because there is a hidden agenda behind them. Mixed among the sensible and silly messages are messages that promote a certain philosophy. For example, the box below shows one of those inspirational messages, apparently written by somebody who just turned 90 years old. I removed most of the 45 "lessons", such as:
10. When it comes to chocolate, resistance is futile.
What do you think of the remaining lessons? How do you interpret them?
To celebrate growing older, I once wrote the 45 lessons life taught me.
It is the most requested column I've ever written. My odometer rolled over to
90 in August, so here is the column once more:

1.. Life isn't fair, but it's still good.
3.. Life is too short to waste time hating anyone.
6.. You don't have to win every argument. Agree to disagree.
8.. It's OK to get angry with God. He can take it.
11. Make peace with your past so it won't screw up the present.
13. Don't compare your life to others. You have no idea what their journey is all about.
26. Frame every so-called disaster with these words 'In five years, will this matter?'
28. Forgive everyone everything.
30. Time heals almost everything. Give time time.
31. However good or bad a situation is, it will change.
32. Don't take yourself so seriously. No one else does.
33. Believe in miracles.
34. God loves you because of who God is, not because of anything you did or didn't do.
42. The best is yet to come.
44. Yield.
45. Life isn't tied with a bow, but it's still a gift

My interpretation of these messages is that the Jews are trying to trick us into becoming tolerant of abuse. They are encouraging us to become passive sheep. The Jews do not want us to think about our problems, look for solutions, discuss our problems, stand up to corruption, or make any attempt to improve our society. They encourage us to ignore the unpleasant aspects of life and focus on the nice aspects. This philosophy is acceptable to prehistoric people, but not in this modern world. When we tolerate abuse and forgive criminals for their horrible behavior, we allow the abuse to continue and increase.

When we encounter somebody we disagree with, the Jews encourage us to be happy that we have freedom of speech. The Jews frequently make such remarks as, "I disagree with your opinions, but I will defend to the death your freedom to say it!" The Jews excel at promoting themselves and fooling us into admiring them.

It is acceptable for us to ignore disagreements over issues of no importance, such as disagreements on which television show to watch, but it is not acceptable to ignore differences of opinions over whether we should bomb Iran's nuclear plant, or whether we should provide sanctuary for George Soros and other criminals. The Jews want us to ignore the differences of opinion so that they can impose their disgusting policies on us. The Jews are encouraging us to be passive, mindless sheeple who have no opinions.

Furthermore, the Jews don't truly defend our freedom of speech. For example, they are not fighting to the death to let me have the freedom to speak. Instead, they are trying to push me aside and fool you into listening to one of their particular agents. I'm sure that I'm just one of thousands of people they are trying to suppress.

In June 2012 the Jews became successful in convincing my mother that I am an anti-Semite, and that I am disclosing personal information about her and other people. She became very upset with me. She has become a victim of their tricks. How about you? Will the Jews fool you?

Don't be arrogant! Don't assume that you have some magic qualities that allow you to avoid their tricks. All of us can be fooled. Since men love to feel important, it is easy to take advantage of a man by making him feel special, or by making him feel inadequate. The men who are least likely to be taken advantage of are those who have better control over their emotions.

We need to understand our emotions
Ignorance is no longer Bliss
In prehistoric times, people did not need an understanding of their emotional cravings. They would have benefited from information about themselves, but they did not need it in order to survive. Today we need to understand ourselves, and in this section, I will give some examples of why.

When you don't know something, you don't realize what you are missing. We have an expression for this, "Ignorance is Bliss". In prehistoric times, ignorance was acceptable, but as the world becomes more complicated, people need an increasingly better understanding of themselves and the universe.

Information about the world is useful to us because it allows us to manipulate the world. For example, as our primitive ancestors learned about mud and fire, they became better at manipulating the mud into pottery.

For another example, when our distant ancestors cut their skin, they noticed that a hard, dry scab would form over it. Eventually people independently deduced that our body produces a scab to protect a wound as it heals. During the past few decades, we have learned a lot more details about the healing process, and we now know that the scab inadvertently interferes with the healing process. Therefore, we can cause wounds to heal faster by preventing the scab from forming by covering the wound with an oily ointment and bandage. Future generations will learn even more about the healing process and that will give them an even better ability to control the process and cause wounds to heal even more quickly.

The more thoroughly we understand our body, the better we can do at maintaining our health. The information about our bodies can also be used to alter society so that our jobs and activities are more sensible. For example, as we learn more about what causes carpal tunnel syndrome, sore tendons, and other medical problems, we can do a better job of designing tools, sports, chairs, bicycles, jobs, beds, and exercise activities that reduce these injuries.

This concept also applies to our mental qualities. As we learn more about our mind, we will do a better job of designing society. For example, the more thoroughly we understand how our mind learns and forgets information, the better we will do at designing schools and training programs. The more we understand about the act of sleeping, the better we will do at figuring out how to sleep better, and we might also find ways to reduce the amount of time that we need to sleep. The more we understand about our emotions and mental qualities, the better we will do at designing jobs to fit what we really are rather than what we assume we are.

We are arrogant animals that fight to the death

There are two related characteristics that we need to be aware of and always in control of:

1) Our arrogance
I've already described our arrogance in other files, so I will only summarize it by pointing out that our primitive ancestors needed extreme arrogance so that they would face each morning with the confidence that they had the physical and mental talent necessary to find food and water, and to defend themselves from predators.

Our arrogance is too extreme today. If you deny that you have a problem with arrogance, then you are simply proving that you do indeed have this problem. I can see this problem in myself, and I can see it in other people, so there is no sense denying that it's a problem for you, also.

2) Our willingness to fight to the death
I have no desire to fight a wolf, or even a pet cat. Humans are not violent. If I encountered a wolf, my first preference would be to quietly get away from it. However, if I was ever in a situation in which a wolf was threatening me and I could not escape, I would fight it. As bizarre as it may seem, my emotions firmly believe that if I had to fight a wolf, I would win the battle.

There is a sensible reason that animals have this craving to fight to the death in what appear to be hopeless situations. The reason is because many times an animal will indeed win the battle because the predator may not be hungry enough to put much effort into the fight, or, the predator may actually be sickly, and therefore easily beaten.

If any animal reacted to a predator by giving up and letting the animal eat it, it would always lose the battle. The animals that fought to the death with predators would often lose the battle, also, but they sometimes won, and as a result, over millions of years of evolution, every animal has a craving to fight to the death. Animals do not give up, even if the situation seems hopeless.

This same characteristic can be seen in humans. For example, when people are playing sports, and when one team starts to lose, some of the people who are emotionally involved in the battle may find their "fight to the death" emotion stimulated, and that can cause them to put an incredible amount of effort and strength into the battle.

It's important to understand this characteristic because we are currently in a battle with Jews, and they are losing the battle. Most of them are probably intelligent enough to realize that they are losing, but animals do not give up. As a result, only some of them are going to have the ability to control their emotions and face the fact that their best option is to quietly give up and help destroy the network. The other Jews are going to continue fighting, and some of them may react to the loss by putting even more effort into it, and fighting to the death.

We must expect the final stage of the battle to be vicious rather than become overly confident that we are winning and start to relax. In fact, we will know when the battle is in the final stage because it will become intense. Therefore, as the battle becomes near its end, we must put more effort into the battle than we want to. The reason is because the Jews are going to put more effort into fighting us. They are going to go into their fight-to-the-death mode. We must be prepared for this and give them what they expect; namely, death. If we become overly confident and relaxed, or if we are afraid to hurt them, we are going to lose.

As of September 2012, there may be millions of people around the world who realize that Jews are responsible for the 9/11 attack, and that Jews are lying about the Holocaust, but there are still lots of Jews promoting the theory that the Arabs did 9/11, or that George Bush is responsible for 9/11, and that the Nazis really did kill 6 million Jews. Why don't they give up? How can they believe that they're going to win?

Only some of the Jews will give up. The others are going to continue fighting until we kill them. In fact, you should be able to see them struggling right now - September 2012 - to instigate fights and manipulate governments in various parts of the world. For example, the US Embassy in Libya was attacked after some mysterious group of Americans created an anti-Muslim film, and the Jews are now trying to convince us that it was an act of war. The US Embassy in Tunisia was attacked a few days later. We must expect this behavior from them to escalate. The desperate, frightened Jews are going to do everything they can to beat us.

The attack on the US Embassy in Libya on 11 September 2012 was an act of war! You idiots, don't just sit there. Defend your nation! Those filthy Muslims killed an ambassador and three other embassy employees. It was 11 years after they attacked the World Trade Center! You must respond with war! You stupid sheep! Do it! Now!
It is important to understand our desire to fight to the death. Not only will this knowledge help us understand the Jews, it can help us with our own lives. For example, when we are failing at something, if we follow our emotions we will refuse to quit, and when we are extremely desperate, we will put even more effort into becoming successful. This behavior made sense in prehistoric times because the people were in life or death competitions, but today we often find ourselves in meaningless competitions. We need to take a serious look at whether it makes intellectual sense to continue struggling, or whether we should accept defeat and try something different.

There are supposedly some people who have reacted to gambling losses by putting even more effort into gambling. If there are such people, they are behaving like a stupid animal that is facing a predator and is reacting by putting more effort into the fight. In the case of a predator, it makes sense to put more effort into a battle, but when we are fighting statistics, a person is a fool to put more effort into the battle.

We should plan our future to be what is best for us, not what we desire

Humans assume that the best way to enjoy life is to satisfy our cravings and to avoid unpleasant feelings. However, this is not true. For example, it would be easy for us to come to the conclusion that hunger is an unpleasant feeling and that we will be happiest if we never suffer from hunger. Unfortunately, this type of reasoning doesn't work for emotions.

If hunger and other emotions were mistakes, such as skin blemishes, or features that we don't need, such as our appendix, then it would make sense to find ways to avoid them, or to figure out how to do brain surgery and remove them from our brain. However, our emotions were not mistakes, and they were not intended to make us miserable. They were designed to cause us to behave in certain manners. Therefore, we cannot arbitrarily ignore or suppress emotions. We need to understand our emotions and learn to control them.

Humans were designed to be hungry, and so we will actually enjoy life better when we do some work and become hungry. When we are hungry, food will taste so good that we don't need much sugar or other flavorings. By comparison, when people avoid hunger by eating throughout the day and evening, they appear to be receiving more pleasure than people who are hungry once in a while, but by never experiencing hunger, the food never tastes as good, and the people have to compensate by increasing the sugar and flavorings. You could respond that by compensating for the bland flavor of the food, they end up enjoying their food, and therefore receive more total pleasure from life, but they also suffer from the problem of becoming overweight. Subtract the misery of being overweight from the pleasure that they receive from food, and I think the people who experience hunger on a regular basis are actually happier overall.

Our emotions were intended for an environment in which food is scarce. Until we adapt to our new environment in which food is plentiful, we need to control our emotions rather than try to satisfy them. After humans have adapted to this new environment, they will be able to eat as much food as they please because their body will make them feel full as soon as it receives enough food. Their body will not push them into eating large amounts of food and saving the excess as fat.

We cannot design a society according to what our emotions are most attracted to. We have to understand our emotions, and we have to then figure out what would be best for us. In many cases, we will enjoy life more if we force ourselves to do what we don't want to do, such as becoming hungry before eating.

The more we know, the more subdivisions we create

Our distant ancestors had no understanding of rocks, and so when they talked about rocks, they had only a few simple categories, such as big rocks, small rocks, hard rocks, soft rocks, brown rocks, and black rocks. As people learned more about rocks, the subdivisions increased. Today have three primary categories, igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic. Each of those categories has subcategories, and each of them have subcategories, and so on.

The more we understand a subject, the easier it is for us to make subtle distinctions between what appear to be nearly identical items. This allows us to create subdivisions so that we can more accurately categorize the items according to their subtle differences. When we know a lot about something, we can distinguish between two items that are virtually identical. Conversely, if we have only a couple of divisions for a subject, that means we know almost nothing about it.

What is "bullying"?

Another reason that we need to understand the human mind is so that we can pass judgment on who among us has a defective mind. Consider the issue of bullying. As of today, we have no subcategories for bullying, which implies that there is only one type of bully, but what are the chances that there is only one type of bully? Every time we analyze some aspect of the universe, we find that is much more complex than we thought. We should assume that bullying is much more complicated than we realize.

Most people consider the word "bully" to refer to children who are abusive with other children. However, children have a natural tendency to torment misfits, so we have to distinguish between "normal" and "abnormal" bullying. As I described in my previous file of this series, I think that a lot of the behavior that we currently refer to as "bullying" should be put into a category that I referred to as our "natural quality control".

We cannot assume that every child who irritates another child is a bully. Consider that adult men are sometimes violent, but that doesn't mean that they are "violent" or dangerous. For example, if a man is attacked by a dog or another human, and if he kills the attacker, he is not necessarily a "violent" person. He may simply be "defending" himself. The people in the animal control departments of cities are routinely killing abandoned pet dogs and cats, but they are not necessarily violent. It is absurd for us to prohibit the killing of animals, plants, and people, and it is absurd to consider people who kill as being violent or dangerous. Instead, we must pass judgment on when it is acceptable for us to kill something.

For example, if a gardener of a park kills a tree in order to maintain the park, then his killing would be considered as "maintenance". By comparison, if a person kills a tree because he is angry or psychotic, his killing would be considered "vandalism".

Now consider how this applies to the issue of bullying. Children have a natural desire to torment misfits, and until that quality is eliminated from the human gene pool, we must tolerate this behavior and distinguish between children who are behaving in their "normal" manner, and children who are abnormally violent or abusive. I would restrict the word "bully" to the children who are abnormally violent or abusive. With that definition, most of the people who claim to be victims of bullies are not really victims of bullies. Rather, they are misfits that are victims of our normal, quality control procedures.

How do we determine which of the people who are claiming to be victims of bullying are really victims? I would say that a victim of a bully is just one of many victims of an individual child, whereas a victim of our natural quality control procedures is the sole victim of a large number of children.

The difference between a bully and a misfit
A misfit is abused by a lot of ordinary children. A misfit stimulates pity towards the misfit, but not necessarily anger towards the abusive children. The misfit and the children are usually the same age and social group. A bully has a lot of victims. A bully stimulates anger towards the bully, but not necessarily pity towards the victims. A bully is often physically larger or older than his victims, and may be in a different social group.
For a personal example, as I wrote in the Chapter 13 of my book about 9/11, there was a boy in my neighborhood named Richie who would torment other children, all of whom were smaller, younger, or weaker than he. Richie would also torment animals. Each of his victims was just one of many victims. Furthermore, all of his victims were victims of only one individual, namely, Richie, although occasionally Richie had some support from one of his temporary friends.

At the other extreme, Michelle Trachtenberg claims to have been bullied by 150 children in the 8th grade. She claims that she was tormented because she was an actress, implying that the other students were envious. However, there are thousands of other children around the world with acting jobs, but who do not get tormented. Therefore, we should wonder if Trachtenberg was living in an area where the children were unusually envious, or if they were tormenting her for some other reason, such as that they didn't like her personality. Perhaps it was a combination of factors, such as that there were a lot of envious children in that school, and a lot of the children didn't like her personality.

Trachtenberg's mother was a Russian Jew, and she grew up in Brooklyn, so she may have been living around a lot of Jews. During the past few years, I have been wondering if Jews are more envious than other groups of people. If so, Trachtenberg may have been tormented by other Jews who were envious of her acting jobs and her much more attractive, non-Jewish face. It's also possible that she was tormented because some students disliked her Jewish personality.

It is also possible that Trachtenberg experienced the same type of life as the other children in her school, but that she is so psychotic that she imagined that other children were tormenting her.

The point I want to bring to your attention is that the victims of Richie were just one of his many victims, all of whom are physically smaller and weaker, whereas Michelle Trachtenberg claims to be the sole victim of 150 bullies who were virtually the same age and size.

From my casual observations of the people who publicly whine about how they were bullied as children, none of them should be allowed to call themselves "victims of bullies". Rather, they were misfits that other children didn't like. Some of these "victims" were not even tormented. For example, Margaret Cho, as I mentioned here, complained that somebody told her that she was too fat to be a ballerina, and she considered that remark as "bullying". I suspect that she was never bullied by anybody, but she believes that she was bullied because she is suffering from some type of emotional disorder that causes her to overreact to criticism.

Some famous people whine about being bullied as a child, but I think that the reason some of them have become famous is because they are suffering from an emotional disorder that causes them to have intense feelings of inadequacy. Certain types of emotional disorders can cause a child to imagine himself to be bullied and unappreciated, and he will also irritate a lot of people with his miserable personality. As a result of his feelings of inadequacy, he may fantasize that becoming rich and famous will bring him intense happiness. Therefore, we should not be surprised to discover that many of the rich and famous people are psychotic, unhappy, and convinced that they are unappreciated and abused.

The people who are truly victims of bullies don't seem to be making a public issue about it. I personally knew some of the victims of Richie, for example, but I didn't see any of them make a public display about being a victim. They reacted by trying to avoid Richie. The people who whine about bullying are those who are the sole victim of a large number of children. I think these people are bringing this issue to the public because they want to stimulate us into giving them pity. They are trying to manipulate us. I can understand why the other children were irritated by them and wanted to torment them.

We should not automatically feel sorry for a child who complains about being bullied. We have to look at the situation seriously and pass judgment on whether the child is really a victim of a bully, or whether the child is a misfit that the other children don't like, or whether the child is so emotionally defective that he is only imagining himself to be bullied.

A child who can truly be described as a "bully" is a young version of a criminal, and I suspect that if we were to follow those children as they grow up, we would find that they become undesirable adults. Some of them may simply be suffering from medical disorders that can be corrected with diet, surgery, hormones, or medicines, but those type of children should be considered a threat to society.

People need to lose their sexual inhibitions

Another reason that we need to understand our emotions is so that we can enjoy sex. To animals, sex is just a momentary, almost trivial part of life. I suspect that it was a rather small part of prehistoric human life, also. In modern society, however, it has become a significant activity. Unfortunately, most people are so sexually inhibited that they cannot discuss the issue, not even with their sexual partner.

People can openly discuss food, and that allows us to experiment with food and figure out what we like and dislike. However, we treat sex in almost the same hysterical manner that we treat our waste products. Virtually all parents are too inhibited to teach their children about sex, and they are too inhibited to allow schools to teach the subject, except in a superficial manner.

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of married couples are having sex in a manner that neither is truly enjoying because both of them are too inhibited to let the other know what they like and dislike. How can a man satisfy a woman when she is too inhibited to let him know what she likes and dislikes? I also wouldn't be surprised if some women cannot completely enjoy sex because their inhibitions about it are so strong that they cannot relax and enjoy the feelings.

Furthermore, I would bet that there are some couples having sex in a manner that neither of them enjoy, but they suffer silently because they each assume the other person is happy. The reason I say this is because I have seen this problem occur with food, drinks, and other activities. There are some people who, when a friend gives them food they don't like, or takes them on some activity they don't care for, will pretend that they like it because they worry about hurting their friend's feelings. Their friend will then be deceived into thinking that they like the food or activity, and so they might do it again under the assumption that their friend likes it, even if they themselves don't like doing it. Once a person gets stuck in this type of situation, they become afraid to let the other person know the truth because they worry that the other person will become very upset that they allowed the deception to continue for years.

A similar problem can occur when a person is not certain about what he likes. For example, if a person is given a particular food he has never had much experience with, he might find it fascinating. However, as time passes, he may slowly come to the conclusion that he doesn't really care for that food, but he might be too embarrassed to admit this, and so the other person continues to assume that he enjoys it.

I have personally observed this type of behavior, and since I have seen it in the small sample of the human population that I have met, then it must be occurring on a regular basis all around the world. This deceptive behavior is another example of an issue I mentioned in my previous file; namely, the qualities of the human mind that were acceptable in prehistoric times are no longer acceptable. It was acceptable in prehistoric times for people to lie to each other in order to make one another feel good, but in today's complex society, this deception can create awkward and ridiculous situations. People need to become more honest and more capable of accepting reality. We need to understand ourselves and other people, and we must stop deceiving one another.

You might find it interesting to consider what would happen if you were capable of reading people's minds. Would you be able to handle such an ability? You would discover that people go through mood changes, and that they think all sorts of crazy thoughts, and that people are frequently lying to you for a variety of reasons, such as to make you feel good. The ability to read minds would expose you to the truth about the human mind and its emotions. You would be able to learn exactly how the human mind functions, and what is different about different people's minds. Most people seem to be capable of understanding animal behavior, but I don't think they would be able to handle the truth about the human mind.

Another issue that you might find interesting to consider is to imagine if pet dogs were too inhibited to be honest. For example, imagine that a person offers his pet dog a piece of watermelon. The dog sniffs the watermelon, considers it to be disgusting, but eats the watermelon anyway and pretends to enjoy it in order to please the human. The person would then assume that his dog enjoys watermelon, and so the next day he might give the dog some more watermelon, and the day after that, and so on, year after year.

If animals lied to us in the same manner that we deceive one another, well, I'll leave it to the comedians to explain. Ideally, the human race would evolve into a creature that is capable of understanding its mind to such an extent that people can be honest with one another.

Our sexual inhibitions and our tendency to lie to one another are not problems that can be solved with education or psychological treatment. The human race has to evolve into a creature that is less like an animal. We have to start observing who among us is better adapted to this modern world. The people who cannot fit in and enjoy life should not be producing children.

If we could travel into the future to when humans are well adapted to this new era, I think we would see a lot of changes in social life, schools, buildings, and even bathrooms. As I mentioned years ago, men make a mess in the bathroom when they pee while standing up, especially when they shake their penis afterwards. We need to design a different type of toilet for men. The urinals at public bathrooms are not very good, either. However, most people cannot discuss this issue, and schools cannot teach children about it. When the future generations finally become adapted to this modern world, they will probably consider us to be monkeys in clothing.

Men and women are variations of the same human

As I've wrote years ago here, I think there is only one blueprint for a human, which means that men and women are just subtle variations of a unisex human. As a result, I think men and women can understand one another's emotions by looking at their own emotions. We have the same emotions, but there are subtle variations to them.

For example, consider how a woman reacts to a baby. Women are emotionally titillated by the visual image of babies, their behavior, and their odor. However, a woman's emotions do not want to enjoy a baby from a distance. Their emotions give them cravings to grab the baby. The woman will have an urge to pick the baby up, hold it in her arms, give it affectionate kisses, and look at it in its face.

If a baby girl was raised in a laboratory cage all by herself without any contact with humans, and if she was artificially inseminated while sleeping one night when she was 18 years old, she would have a natural attraction to her baby, and she would know how to take care of that baby without anybody telling her. She might be shocked to discover that a baby has come out of her body, but after she relaxes, she will be attracted to her baby. She will have a craving to pick the baby up and hold it in her arms, while looking at it in its face. This would put the baby into the position for nursing. Since she was pregnant, her breasts will be somewhat irritating to her, and the baby has an uncontrollable craving to suck on anything that is near its mouth. The end result is that as the woman is titillating herself by holding the baby, the baby will eventually suck on her nipple, and she is not likely to push the baby off because it will feel good to her. Women also have strong cravings to groom their children, such as removing the knots in their hair, and cleaning their face. As a result, a woman without any training will keep her baby clean and well groomed.

If all women were to honestly and accurately described their emotions, we would find that although they are slightly different from one another, they all have the same basic emotions, and that every one of their emotions have a very important purpose. A woman's emotions are not arbitrary or irrational or frivolous or meaningless. Every intellectual and emotional characteristic of a woman's mind makes sense, but only in a prehistoric era, not this modern world.

For example, the craving women have to take care of babies is so strong that they will take care anything that resembles a baby, such as animals, retarded children, and dolls. Our prehistoric ancestors undoubtedly encountered an orphan child once in a while, and the women would have had cravings to pick the child up, kiss him, and take care of him, even if he was a Neanderthal child that looked and behaved differently from their own children.

Their craving to take care of babies was kept under control during prehistoric times by nature. For example, the women could take care of only a few animals, and they could provide their pets with only the basic necessities, such as scraps of food. By comparison, women today can take care of hundreds of cats and dogs, and they can do more than provide basic necessities. Some women provide their pets with chicken, steaks, eggs, and other foods that were intended for humans, and they present the food to their animals on porcelain dishes that are nicer than what some people are using for themselves. Women have such a strong craving to groom their children that they will spend a lot of time brushing their pet dogs and giving it baths and shampoos.

Men will take care of animals, also, including giving their pet dogs a bath, but men tend to treat an animal in the same manner that they treat other personal possessions. The men do not treat the animal as their child. Women, by comparison, feed, wash, and care for their pet dogs with the same loving care as when they care for their children.

Simon Allison, who works for a company that makes pet food, and who supposedly tastes the pet food to make sure it tastes good, says that they add peas and carrots to the pet food to make it look more like human food. He says the animals don't like the vegetables, but the pet owners seem to prefer pet food that looks like human food. Apparently, many pet owners are not thinking of what is best for their dog or cat; rather, they are picking food as if they were feeding a child. They are not "raising animals"; rather, they are using the animals to titillate themselves. The animals, of course, enjoy the pampering, but that doesn't justify encouraging this activity. Many pet dogs enjoy sniffing the crotch of their pet owners, and some of dogs seem to enjoy having sex with their pet owners, but does that mean we want to encourage this type of activity? We should not do something simply because it titillates our emotions. We need to think about what effect it will have on our life, our relationships, and our society.

The addition of the peas and carrots, incidentally, is another example of businesses doing whatever it takes to sell a product, even if they consider the practice to be stupid. There is no attempt by businesses to consider what is best for society. The successful business executives treat us as idiots to exploit. The businesses that produce pet food are not producing the food according to what is best for the animals. Rather, they are producing pet food according to what is best for titillating consumers and bringing in the most profit.

As technology improves, it becomes easier for us to raise larger numbers of pets, and to raise a greater variety of pets. There are already people in America with lots of dogs, cats, monkeys, alligators, pigs, birds, fish, and snakes. Every culture has developed rules for pets, such as restricting us to certain types of pets, restricting certain pets to certain areas of the city, or requiring us to clean up after our pets in certain areas of the city. However, we will develop better policies for pets when we have a better understanding of our emotions.

The more we understand an issue, the better we will do at creating policies for it. Why do people want pets? Why do they abandon pets? Why are some people having sexual relations with their pets?

I suspect that if we completely understood human emotions, we would discover that most pet owners are using their pets as substitutes for children and friends. They have certain emotional cravings that are unfulfilled, and they are using animals to stimulate those emotions. This may please those people, but it is not solving the problem they suffer from. It would be more sensible for us to understand our emotions and then experiment with changes in society to allow us to satisfy our emotional cravings in a more sensible manner. We need to design a society in which women have more contact with children, and everybody has more friends and activities.

Don't underestimate the importance of understanding our emotions. The better we understand ourselves, the better we will be able to understand why we behave as we do, and how to design society to provide us with a life that we will truly be satisfied with.

Since men and women are variations of the same human blueprint, men have the same emotions as women, but there are subtle variations in how they developed. I think a man's emotional attraction to women is just a variation of the emotional attraction women have to babies. A man is titillated by the visual image of women, their behavior, and their odor. As with women, men do not want to enjoy women from a distance. We have cravings to touch them. If women were smaller, we would pick them up and hold them in our arms. We want to look at their face. We want to give them affectionate kisses.

I think women will develop a better understanding of men if they do a better job of understanding themselves, and vice versa. I think there is only one human brain, and so men and women have exactly the same intellectual and emotional characteristics, but there are subtle differences in how those characteristics developed. Women have cravings to grab at babies and hold them, whereas men have cravings to grab at women and hold them. It seems to be the exact same emotion, except that women do not become sexually titillated by babies. Therefore, women can safely let one another hold their babies without worrying that a woman will become sexually titillated. By comparison, men do not let other men touch or kiss their wives because it could result in sexual stimulation.

If a baby boy was raised in a laboratory cage in complete isolation, and if a woman was put into his cage when he was 18, after the two of them relaxed, he would eventually have sex with her without any idea of what he was doing. He would want to touch the woman, kiss her, and smell her. He would treat her in the same manner that a woman would treat a baby except that he would become sexually excited in the process. His natural craving would be to rub his penis against her. Just like a dog, he might initially rub against her leg or body.

When a woman is holding a baby, she wants to look at the baby's face, not its back, or butt. Likewise, although men are attracted to a woman's legs and body, it is her face and eyes that are the most attractive and interesting. Therefore, a boy who grows up in isolation is likely to eventually end up in a face-to-face position with a woman, just as mothers do with their babies, and that would eventually lead to sexual intercourse.

A lot of men have a problem controlling their craving to grab at women, especially on crowded trains. I think women can understand this emotion by looking at their own craving to grab at babies. The men who cannot control their craving to touch women are similar to the women who cannot control their cravings to touch babies.

Some men touch and kiss their wives so much that their wives become irritated, and I think women can understand that behavior by noticing that some mothers hug and kiss their children to the point at which their children are pushing them away. The men who rape women are similar to the women who steal babies from one another.

Since there is only one blueprint for a human, I suspect that the men who grab at women on public trains would produce daughters who are more likely to have trouble controlling their craving to grab at babies. The men who grab at their wives excessively may produce daughters who hug and kiss their children excessively. The men who rape women may produce daughters who are more likely to steal babies. It might be helpful to study people to see if there is a behavioral connection between fathers and their daughters, and between mothers and their sons. Baldness affects only men, but what about behavioral characteristics?

What makes one woman more attractive than another to a man? It is primarily her face, personality, and intelligence. Our mind cannot see much of a difference between women's bodies. If we were making decisions on women according to legs or bodies, all heterosexual men would get married at a young age. Most women have nice legs and other body parts.

Although we are attracted to a woman's body, we are much more concerned about her face, personality, and intelligence, although many men don't seem to realize it. Many men seem to believe that they are most attracted to a woman's breasts or legs, but that is not true. I suppose the reason men make this mistake is because it is her body that we first see from a distance. We don't notice her mind unless we talk or interact with her.

Men and women are having a lot of problems with relationships today. Some feminists claim that women have always suffered, and that up until recently they were suffering silently, but I don't believe that the women thousands of years ago were as miserable as they are today. I think both men and women were much happier in prehistoric times. Our prehistoric ancestors had almost no compatibility issues. They didn't have to worry about what foods they liked, what type of music they preferred, or what they wanted to do with their money. All they were concerned about was survival.

I think we are suffering today because we are no longer in our natural environment. Today men and women need a much better understanding of themselves and one another. We need to be much more concerned about compatibility. We need to design a society that helps us meet people. We are not helping ourselves when we encourage people to sit at home with a pet dog or a television set. We need to design society to provide us with activities that are more sensible.

I think women will have a better understanding of men and courtship if they understand their own cravings for babies. When men pursue women, we are not actually looking for sex. It would be more accurate to describe our attraction to women as being similar to a woman's attraction to a baby. We want to touch and kiss women, but the men are not likely to be sexually aroused, so it is not correct to say that we are looking for sex. However, as soon as a man starts touching a woman, he may become sexually aroused, and that can cause him to want sex. This can cause a woman to incorrectly assume that his initial interest in her was sex. The difference is subtle, but it is significant.

From my casual observations of people, I think some women are misinterpreting a man's behavior. They seem to assume that our attempts to grab and kiss them is because we want sex, but most of the times when a man touches a woman, he will not be sexually aroused.

Neither men nor women should think of themselves as being better than the other; we are just slightly different. For some examples, some men are awkward and clumsy when they touch women, but some women are awkward and clumsy when they touch babies. We could describe some men as grabbing at women excessively, but we could describe some women as grabbing at babies excessively. We could describe some men as staring at women to such an extent that it becomes irritating to women and socially unacceptable, but we could also describe some women as staring excessively at babies.

Women are regularly complaining about men who touch, stare at, and rape them, but there are not many babies or children complaining about abuse from women. This could lead us to the conclusion that women are better behaved than men, but I don't think either of us is better. I think the reason there are so few complaints about women is because babies and children are so submissive. Also, men do not complain about women who do the female equivalent of rape, which is to use a man for entertainment or money. Men could whine about this and describe it as "financial rape", but most men simply accept it as a part of the process of finding a wife.

I have heard some women complain to their husbands or boyfriends that a man cannot truly understand what a woman feels. These women claim that only women understand other women. However, I don't think this is true. Billions of women have already lived and died, and there are billions alive right now. If women were capable of providing an useful analysis of a woman's mind, why haven't any of them done it yet? Why haven't they given us a description of their emotions, and how they feel towards babies, life, food, and other issues?

Virtually everything the human race has learned about the universe has come from men. Therefore, we can assume men will provide a better understanding of women. If this seems strange, consider dogs or children. Adults can understand children better than children can understand themselves, and humans can provide better explanation of dogs than the dogs can provide. We don't have to be a dog to understand a dog. Likewise, we don't have to be a woman in order to understand women.

The better we understand both men and women, the better we will be able to design courtship activities, marriages, social activities, recreational activities, and jobs. The feminists want businesses to treat women as men, but I think women would be happier if we could figure out the differences between us and alter the jobs for women to be better suited to their particular mental and physical characteristics.

I think there are some subtle but significant differences between men and women in regards to jobs. For example, women do not seem to enjoy working in a hierarchy. They seem to have evolved for an environment in which they were their own boss, and they were frequently dealing with a variety of ever-changing tasks, such as taking care of children, looking for food, and making clothing. Furthermore, women were always surrounded by and socializing with other women and children. Men, by comparison, have a tendency to work in hierarchies, and we tend to work quietly, while concentrating on a task for a very long period of time. Men socialize as they work, but much less than women.

We will never be able to create jobs that everybody will be happy with, but I think we can do better than what we are doing today in regards to providing women with working conditions that are more appropriate for them. Some businesses are providing rooms for women to leave their babies, and some supervisors will put groups of women in their own room so that they can chat without bothering the men, but if we were to design a completely new city, we could design it specifically to deal with the issues of women who are pregnant, nursing babies, and taking care of young babies. We could make it easier for women to leave their babies very close to where they are working, and we could provide the women with many more breaks during the day so that they can frequently visit with and take care of their children.

We need standards for intelligence
Some opinions must be suppressed, but who decides?
As of today, no society is in control of its future. No society is making plans on how their language will evolve, what their holiday celebrations will be, or even how many people will be living in their society in the future. No society is discussing what they want their future cities to be like, or their future transportation systems, or how to change their school curriculum to fit the changing technology and jobs. Most people either ignore the future, or they worry about it. They do not make any attempt to control it.

In order for a society to control its future, we must be capable of discussing issues and coming to conclusions. For example, do we want our cities to consist of single-family homes, or should cities have apartment buildings of some type? Do we want people working 40 hours a week, five days a week, or would we prefer working 30 hours a week, four days a week so that we have three days each week for other activities? Do we want to follow the Mormon philosophy of prohibiting alcohol, coffee, and tea? Or do we want to follow the Muslim or Jewish philosophy of prohibiting pork and circumcising boys? Do we want people to carry guns for protection against crime, or do we want to evict and/or execute people in an attempt to reduce crime to such low levels that we don't have to worry about protecting ourselves?

How do we resolve these issues? Some of them are obviously emotional decisions rather than intellectual. For example, whether we should work 40 hours a week or 30 hours a week is simply an issue we have to decide. How much time do we want to spend working? How much time do we want for leisure activities?

It may appear as if some of these issues can be resolved with a scientific analysis, but unfortunately, people disagree on what is "evidence", "rational", and "idiotic". For example, some people believe that there are intelligent reasons to support evolution, and other people insist that there are intelligent reasons to support creationism. How do we resolve these issues?

Some of our differences are so insignificant that we could coexist in peace, but in reality, people are not as tolerant as they claim to be. Food is a good example. Some people want to prohibit the consumption of cats, dogs, and horses, and others want to prohibit the consumption of pigs, and others want to prohibit the consumption of cows. There are some vegetarians who don't want anybody eating meat, and some vegetarians don't even want people eating eggs or fish. The Mormons do not want anybody consuming coffee, tea, or alcohol. If everybody would eat the foods that they wanted to eat and let everybody else eat whatever they wanted to eat, we could live in peace, but an enormous percentage of the population will not tolerate alternative foods. They want laws to prohibit the foods that they do not approve of. Some vegetarians go so far as to attack people who are wearing leather clothing.

The issue of assisted suicide is another example. Everybody boasts about supporting "freedom", so why not provide people with the freedom to decide when and how they die? The people who oppose assisted suicide do not want anybody to have the freedom to end their life. They also do not want women to have the freedom to abort their babies, and they do not want parents to have the freedom to kill their retarded children.

How are we going to resolve our differences of opinion? It has to be resolved with physical force. One philosophy has to be chosen, and the others have to be suppressed with a police force.

If I seem to be promoting violence, I am simply stating what should be obvious. For example, the governments of all nations are using a police force to impose their particular views of assisted suicide and euthanasia. The police are denying us the freedom to choose assisted suicide, and the police will put parents in jail or execute them for killing their retarded children.

We are already living in a world in which teams of policemen are being used to force us to follow a particular philosophy. I am not suggesting that we try to implement some Marxist fantasy in which we all love one another, tolerate one another, and eliminate the government and police. Rather, I agree that we need to use a police force to impose one particular philosophy and suppress the alternative philosophies. All I am suggesting is that we take a critical look at the culture that we are imposing and ask ourselves, is this really what we want? Is this really what is best for us?

Think seriously about whether you want to spend whatever is remaining of your life in the world as it is today, or if you would like to experiment with a different path. Do you want to continue being dominated by the people who are currently in control? I suggest you consider getting involved with discussions on which philosophy we want to impose on the world, and which philosophy we want to suppress. Consider taking an active role in helping to push aside the people who currently dominate the world so that we can experiment with a different course for our future.

We must set standards for the human mind

In order for a "better" group of people to dominate the world, we have to decide who among us will be better in the influential positions. How do we decide who among us qualifies as a government official, journalist, scientist, or school official? We must devise standards for the human mind, and then we must pass judgment on who among us fits those standards.

For example, the Pope probably considers himself to be intelligent, and he would probably consider me to be mentally defective or possessed by the devil. We need to design standards for the human mind so that the Pope shows up as mentally incompetent, and people like me show up as intelligent. This might seem to be a joke, but organizations around the world are routinely setting standards for various mental and physical qualities.

For example, in order for a person to qualify as a policeman, he has to meet certain arbitrary standards for physical and mental abilities. The police academies cannot truly measure any of their candidates' abilities, so they cannot truly say which of them has the abilities that a policeman needs, but they can and do set standards and pass judgment on the candidates. The candidates who pass those arbitrary standards can be given the job of a policeman. We then have to observe the performance of those policemen, and if some of them don't function properly has policemen, we should experiment with changes to the standards. It's a trial and error process, and it never becomes "perfect".

How do we determine if a person should be referred to as a "violinist", and allowed to play in an orchestra? How do we determine if a person should be a dentist, doctor, engineer, airline pilot, plumber, or scientist? We analyze the person's abilities and we pass judgment on whether he has the qualities necessary for the job.

Nobody has any objection to analyzing a person's musical abilities, dentistry talent, or carpentry skills, but we do not apply these concepts to "leaders". There are no standards for a person to meet in order to get into a leadership position. Nobody has to qualify to have an influential position in society.

We can and should treat people in influential positions the same as we treat the skilled workers. We can set standards for the mental qualities of people in influential positions, and we can pass judgment on whether a person is showing evidence of meeting our standards for intelligence, responsibility, honesty, and bias.

We begin the process simply by setting some arbitrary standards for intellectual abilities. We then restrict influential positions to the people who fit those standards. We then observe the behavior and performance of those people, and when we find people who are not performing properly, we experiment with changes in the standards in order to do a better job of finding the appropriate people.

We do not know enough about the human mind to provide accurate, detailed descriptions of a person's intelligence, but we can pass judgment on whether they have the intelligence necessary to be in a leadership role, or whether their thinking is so faulty that they should be prohibited from having any influence over society.

The reason we need to pass judgment on people's thinking abilities is so that we know who we need to suppress. We need to figure this out so that the police have some guidelines to follow. For example, skim over this document that lists 10 facts that disprove evolution:
Top Ten Scientific Facts: Evolution is False and Impossible

I would use that document as one of the examples of a mind that has such faulty thinking that the person should be considered a danger to society. I have no objection to a person who wants to believe in a god, but the author of that document is not merely a believer in a god; rather, he is showing signs of incredibly faulty thinking. Since he cannot think properly about evolution, why should we assume that he will think properly as a voter, government official, or school teacher? Why should we assume that his children will be able to think properly?

Our natural reaction to people who make idiotic remarks is to assume that they are ignorant, and since we want to be helpful, and since we enjoy being heroes, we want to spend some of our time trying to show them where they are making mistakes. However, the author of that article is intellectually defective, not ignorant. We are wasting our time when we try to convince people like him of their mistakes. They obviously cannot understand the concepts that we can understand.

We can and should analyze people's intellectual abilities and classify the people who show signs of faulty thinking as "intellectually defective". We should not allow these defective people in any positions of influence, and we should not let them reproduce. We should not allow them to contaminate the Internet with their stupid documents, either. We should set aside a special area of the Internet for the idiots so that their documents don't appear in our searches.

In the world today, if a person makes a lot of money, has a college diploma, has excellent math abilities, or is in some position of authority, then he considers himself to be more intelligent than the ordinary people. We have to change our attitude towards intelligence. Money, school diplomas, job titles, math abilities, and artistic talent should not be considered as evidence of intelligence.

The only people we should consider as "intelligent" are those who meet the standards we set for intelligence. The people who produce such analyses as those "Top 10 Scientific Facts" would be classified as substandard or defective.

We already pass judgment on who among us has the ability to be a doctor, dentist, and airline pilot, and we can and should also pass judgment on who is too intellectually defective to reproduce or have an influential position in society.

The only serious potential problem with judging people is that crime networks might get control of the process and make decisions that benefit their network rather than benefit society. We can see this with the Nobel prizes. The scientists are supposed to be judging one another for this prize, but a group of Jews has gotten control of the process. We need to do a better job of eliminating crime networks.

A minor problem with judging people is that there will always be people on the "borderline". When we judge whether a person is capable of flying an airline or being a dentist, there are some people who are obviously qualified, and some who are obviously unqualified, but there are a lot of people that are on the border between qualified and unqualified. Likewise, once we start passing judgment on intelligence, there will be some people who are obviously very intelligent and some people who are obviously defective, but there are going to be lots of people along the border of whatever categories we create.

Those "borderline people" will frequently whine if they are not selected, but we cannot worry about the people on the borderline. Pity won't help them, and it won't help any of us. People simply have to face the fact that life is not perfect, and that we don't know enough about the human mind to make perfect judgments on our mental or physical abilities.

How do we determine a person's leadership abilities?

I don't think our school system is measuring a student's intelligence or his leadership abilities. I think our school is measuring other qualities, such as a person's ability to memorize information, and their ability to do the type of problems that appear on school tests.

It is important for everybody to be able to memorize information, such as memorizing enough words to function properly in society. However, schools don't have to bother trying to measure a person's ability to memorize information because that quality is meaningless, at least today. Even if we could precisely measure everybody's ability to memorize information, what good would that information do any of us? It would certainly be interesting to know what our memorizing abilities are, but it would be as useless as measuring the rate at which hair grows on each person's head.

Besides, it may not be possible to measure our memory because we may have different types of memorizing abilities. For example, we might find some people have a better ability to memorize faces, and other people have a better memory with numbers, and other people might be better at memorizing lists of items. Therefore, instead of measuring a person's memory, we may have to measure several or even a dozen different memory abilities.

The human mind has a lot of intellectual abilities. We cannot measure a quality as vague and general as "intelligence". We need to be more specific about which actual qualities we want to measure. In this document, I am suggesting we pass judgment on who should influence society, and therefore, we need to measure the ability a person has to analyze cultural issues and develop opinions that we regard as intelligent and desirable. To measure this particular quality, we need to ask people to do an analysis of some cultural issue, such as euthanasia, crime, religion, clothing, holidays, marriage, abortion, voting, political parties, or sports, and then pass judgment on whether they are doing what we consider proper research and coming to conclusions that we regard as sensible and desirable.

This process may seem too simplistic to be practical, but this is exactly what we are doing to select dentists, scientists, policemen, and airline pilots. If you have a driver's license, you went through this process to get that license. Specifically, you had to perform certain tasks, and somebody in the Department of Motor Vehicles passed judgment on whether your performance was adequate.

As strange as it may seem, we can apply this same process to journalists, government officials, business executives, school officials, and everybody else in an influential position. We can demand that they first do some analyses of issues, and then we analyze their analyses, and we pass judgment on whether they are showing signs of doing proper research and coming to sensible conclusions. The only people who would be qualified for influential positions would be those who produce analyses that we regard as acceptable.

It would also be necessary for us to set up schools to train people to become influential members of society. This concept might seem strange, but we are doing this right now for other activities. Nobody is expected to pass a driver's test without first going to some classes to learn how to drive. Nobody is expected to pass the test for an airline pilot, policeman, or chef without first having some classes to teach him that particular activity and get some practice.

Schools should give students assignments to research and analyze cultural issues. However, schools must change their attitude towards testing. They are currently treating students as if they are objects on an assembly line. When the quality control inspectors want to verify that an assembly-line is working correctly, they will check individual components or very specific qualities. For example, on an assembly line for bicycles, they might check if the welding on a particular tube is adequate, and another part of the assembly-line they may check if the nuts holding the wheel are tightened properly.

It doesn't do us much good to check individual components of a human. For example, to determine a person's abilities in gymnastics or football, we cannot test individual muscles or joints. We have to put the person into the actual sporting event that we want to check, and then observe his performance. Being successful at winning sporting events requires more than healthy muscles and joints. It also requires a person with the necessary desire to train for the event and put a lot of effort into winning, and it requires a healthy liver, heart, lungs, and other supporting organs.

The same is true for mental qualities. Schools give simplistic tests to students under the assumption that by measuring their ability to memorize information or perform math equations, they will be able to determine the overall mental qualities of the student. However, the only way to determine a person's mental qualities is to put him in a realistic situation and then observe his performance.

For example, to determine a woman's mental and physical ability to defend herself against a rapist, we cannot put them into a boxing ring with a man and judge them according to how well they fight. Most women would do terrible in a boxing match with a man. However, some of those women would be willing to fight a rapist, or a pedophile who pulls a child out of their arms.

When I was a teenager, some of the boys in my school would put a lot of effort into winning sports games, including risking broken bones. Those of us who did not put much effort into the game would be ridiculed as quitters, lacking motivation, weaklings, or crybabies. However, from my point of view, a sports event is just recreation and exercise. It's nice to win a sports event, but when I was a teenager, I usually didn't care enough about winning to want to keep score. There were a few times when I was playing sports in which nobody was keeping score, and so we had no idea who was winning. I didn't care, and neither did anyone else in those particular games. We are not lacking motivation. Rather, we simply regard sports as exercise and fun rather than an important competition.

When we judge a person's physical and mental abilities by his ability to win a sports game, we are not actually judging their physical or mental abilities. We are also judging their motivation to win that particular type of sports event.

This concept might seem obvious in regards to physical abilities, but is not being applied to intellectual abilities. When we judge a student's ability to do an unrealistic school test, we are not truly judging his mental abilities. We are judging his motivation and ability to do unrealistic, meaningless tests. In order to pass judgment on a person's ability to influence society, we need to give them realistic assignments, such as analyzing cultural issues and developing policies, as if they were in an influential position.

Leaders should be scientists with emotional control

The chemists, mathematicians, biologists, and other "physical" scientists study physical objects, such as rocks, birds, water, and magnets. Human emotions do not have any significant influence over the study of these items. Therefore, the physical scientists don't have to be much concerned about their emotions interfering with their analyses.

By comparison, government officials, businessmen, and journalists are among the people who are studying issues that affect human life, and these issues have strong effects over our emotions. These people need excellent abilities in research and analysis, just like the physical scientists, but in addition, they need control over their emotions. A person with tremendous intelligence will not be able to produce a useful analysis of abortion if his emotions are stimulated to such an extreme that it is interfering with his ability to think properly.

Another way to describe this situation is that the people in influential positions need to be "cultural scientists", and that cultural scientists need the same excellent ability to research and analyze issues as physical scientists, but they also need control over their emotions.

Emotional control is optional with physical scientists. Therefore, it is possible for biologists, chemists, and mathematicians to have calm, serious discussions about chemicals, rocks, and birds, while having tantrums, violent rages, or emotional trauma over cultural issues.

Analyze people's analyses

In order to determine who among us is suited for an influential position, we have to analyze people's analysis of social issues. Unfortunately, schools are not yet training students in this area, and adults are not in the habit of doing this, and so there are only a few people who have posted analyses of social issues on the Internet for us to analyze, such as that person who posted those 10 facts about evolution.

If the government system I propose was already in existence, then there would be lots of analyses for us to look at because many government officials would post analyses on the Internet, and the citizens would be free to post analyses also. We would then be able to pass judgment on which of those people are showing the best analytical abilities, and they would be the ones who qualify for the top leadership positions.

Since we would regularly replace the worst performing leaders, we would regularly look through the analyses and pick new people to put into a leadership position. The only people who would get into leadership positions would be those who have created some analyses that we regard as impressive. People who haven't created any analysis of any social issue, and the people whose analyses have been judged to be defective, would not even be considered for an important position.

After this government system has been in operation for a while, the only people who would be allowed into leadership positions would be those who have provided us with some analyses that we consider to be sensible. Nobody would be allowed to be in a top leadership position simply because they promise to be a good leader. Once people are in the habit of providing analyses, we must assume that a person who has never provided an intelligent analysis simply doesn't have the ability.

The majority of the human population has never put any significant effort into research or analysis of any issue. If we were to demand everybody post an analysis of abortion, crime, euthanasia, religion, clothing, transportation, and other issues, we would certainly discover that the majority of people are producing documents that are so idiotic that they would all be classified as unfit for influential positions.

We can see evidence of this when people discuss issues during their leisure time. When most people discuss abortion, crime, sex, religion, or politics, they merely repeat the same idiotic remarks over and over, year after year. They learn nothing from one year to the next. They never do any research or analysis. They rarely change their opinions.

Most people are wasting their mind

Some of the people who haven't done anything intelligent actually have impressive intellectual abilities, but the majority of people do not enjoy researching issues or thinking about them. As a result, most people are not reaching the full potential that their mind is capable of.

You can see this same problem in regards to physical abilities. The majority of Americans are overweight and sluggish, but it is not because their bodies are incapable of anything else. Very few people are putting their bodies to its maximum ability. Actually, most people are not even putting their bodies to 50% of its maximum ability. The reason is because humans are nothing more than intelligent animals. We respond to stimuli. When an animal has nothing to do, it has a tendency to sit down and take a nap. When we humans have no stimuli to make us do something, we tend to do nothing.

A wild cheetah can run extremely fast, but would any of them bother to run at even 50% of their maximum if humans were dropping crippled gazelle from helicopters in front of them every day?

Our natural tendency is to do nothing unless we must do something. Animals do not have any craving to use their bodies or their mind. They do not have any interest in learning, thinking, or discussing issues. Humans are more advanced than animals, but even humans tend to do nothing when we don't have to do anything. As a result, now that humans have changed our environment and made life very easy for us, most people are doing almost no thinking, learning, or physical activity. They are behaving like pet dogs or zoo animals that spend most of their time taking naps, eating, and becoming bored.

As a result of this animal characteristic, virtually everybody actually has much greater intellectual and physical abilities than we show. This is the reason why we sometimes find people that we assumed were hopelessly stupid and lazy suddenly transforming into intelligent and physically capable people when the situation arises, such as when they are in the military, or when an earthquake destroys their home. This is also why people such as Chris Powell, on the television show, Extreme Makeover Weight-Loss Edition, can help people who appear to be hopelessly obese, lazy idiots. He gets them to lose weight simply by providing them with some motivation. Chris is not making them lose weight; rather, he is simply pushing them to use the mental and physical abilities they have been ignoring.

During primitive times, people were under constant pressure by nature to find food, protect themselves from wolves, and find water. Our prehistoric ancestors did not have to reprimand their children for sitting around the house all day long. Since they did not have containers of water, the children had to occasionally walk over to rivers or lakes to get a drink, and both children and adults were constantly looking for food and watching out for predators. Since they did not have bathrooms, they had to be especially careful of predators and snakes when they had to eliminate waste products. They were under constant pressure to think, work, and move their body.

None of our primitive ancestors needed Chris Powell or anybody else to push them into doing something. Nature provided all the motivation they needed. However, our world has changed. All of the animals that used to be a threat to us are either extinct, or they developed a fear of us. We no longer have to worry about predators. We are also producing enormous amounts of food and water, so we don't have to worry about that, either. This is allowing humans to behave just like pet dogs.

In order to be properly adapted to this new era, humans must have self-motivation. Although we will all benefit by helping to inspire one another, we need to restrict reproduction to the people who are naturally more motivated. Eventually this will create a group of humans who think, learn, and do things because they actually enjoy such activities.

The majority of people are so accustomed to never thinking or learning that they assume it is normal for people to have the same opinions throughout their lives. For example, when a politician has the same opinion about abortion year after year, the voters will praise him for his stability. By comparison, a person whose opinions change once in a while will be considered wishy-washy.

Maintaining a particular opinion year after year makes sense only when nobody can provide evidence that it needs to change. Unfortunately, the majority of people believe that the people who remain the same year after year are more intelligent than those who occasionally change. They assume that the intelligent people know the answers to life, whereas the stupid people are looking for the answers. The majority of people are firmly convinced that they already have the correct views on religion, crime, abortion, euthanasia, alcohol, and other issues. When somebody already knows the answers to life, he has no reason to change his opinions or waste his time listening to people who are obviously incorrect.

We could restrict influential positions to "cultural scientists"

To summarize these concepts so far, the people who want influential positions in society should be required to create some analyses of cultural issues, and we should pass judgment on which of those people are showing signs of proper research and analysis. If a person is capable of providing us with analyses that we regard as intelligent, then he would classify for some title, such as "cultural scientist". These people may also be classified as carpenters, engineers, chemists, zoologists, or doctors, but a person can have more than one classification.

If a person produces analyses that we regard as unacceptable, then he would not be allowed to have the title of "cultural scientist", regardless of what school courses he graduated in. By restricting the title of "cultural scientist" to the people who have demonstrated excellent analytical abilities with cultural issues, then we have a simple way of controlling who is influencing society: we simply restrict certain positions to people who have been given that classification.

In the world today, a person is considered a "social scientist" simply for graduating from certain college courses. He doesn't have to actually do anything to prove that he has excellent analytical or research abilities. Schools will certainly respond that the students are required to do research and analysis, but it's not the same type of research and analysis that the students do in chemistry, biology, or electronics. As I mentioned in my dumbing down documents, our social science courses are designed for the people who don't have the intellectual ability to handle the physical sciences.

Furthermore, the Jews have taken control of the social sciences and are using the history classes to promote propaganda and suppress people and ideas that they don't like, and they are using other courses to promote feminism, homosexuality, sexual perversion, toilet humor, and the theory that the environment has more influence over human behavior than genetics.

There are so many incompetent and dishonest people calling themselves a "social scientist" that the title of "social scientist" could be considered an embarrassment. Therefore, instead of referring to people who graduate from the social sciences as "social scientists", it might be better to create a different phrase, such as "cultural scientist".

By changing our schools so that they are honest about history, genetics, human behavior, and other issues, we can make the social sciences into real sciences. Maybe we should refer to them as "cultural sciences". The students who graduate from such courses would qualify for entry-level leadership positions because they would have an understanding of history and human behavior, and they would have demonstrated proper research and analytical skills.

After we develop some honest courses in social science, some of the students in chemistry, biology, and other physical sciences might enjoy taking some social science courses. This would allow them to practice the research and analysis of culture. If they did good in those analyses, then they could be classified as "cultural scientists" in addition to becoming chemists or biologists.

For the adults who are already out of school, they could become classified as "cultural scientists" simply by posting a few analyses of cultural issues that we regard as intelligent.

We should pass judgment on who really is a "scientist"

When a student graduates from certain college courses, he can call himself a "scientist", but we need to observe them for years after they graduate to make sure that they are truly performing properly as a scientist. Those who do not should have the title taken away from them, and they should be given a different job.

It is easy for us to pass judgment on scientists because they regularly produce analyses of issues, and this allows us to pass judgment on which of them shows signs of doing proper research and sensible analyses. This allows us to pass judgment whether they deserve to be a scientist. You and I may not be able to judge a biologist or a zoologist, but there are some scientists who could.

Unfortunately, scientists are encouraged only to verify one another's theories, not to pass judgment on whether other scientists truly have the intellectual abilities to function properly as a scientist. I think we should change that attitude. The scientists who repeatedly exhibit faulty thinking should lose their title of "scientist", and they should not be given funding for their scientific research.

If scientists do not occasionally cleanse their field of mentally incompetent people, then society will waste resources funding the incompetent scientists, and the other scientists will waste their time arguing with them. There were a lot of people calling themselves "scientists" when I was a child who were occasionally publishing the "surprising" discovery that identical twins shared a lot of similar behavior, thereby suggesting that there is some genetic basis to human behavior. The more intelligent scientists knew this decades earlier. However, rather than taking away their title of scientist, the other scientists would sometimes waste their time reading their stupid documents and providing responses to them.

For a recent example, some scientists just announced that marijuana can interfere with the development of the human brain. They claim that if young teenagers start smoking marijuana regularly, they will become noticeably less intelligent as adults. I have not bothered to closely analyze their report, but my impression from the news reports is that all they did is notice that the people who started smoking marijuana early in their teenage years are less intelligent as a group than the rest of us.

Imagine a more extreme example. Imagine that a scientist studies the children who play with dolls and he discovers that the boys who play with dolls are homosexual, and so he concludes that the dolls are interfering with the development of the boy's brain by stimulating his feminine qualities, thereby causing many of the boys to become homosexual.

There is already evidence that many drugs have an effect on the development of our brain or body, so I would not be surprised if marijuana has an effect on us, also. However, I don't think their study has proven anything. The ideal way to determine the effect of marijuana on the human mind and body would be to take a large and random selection of children, put them into laboratory cages, and then give some of them a little bit of marijuana, some of them a lot of marijuana, and some none at all. When they become adults, we could analyze their brains and bodies to determine the effects of the marijuana.

Since it is not practical to conduct experiments on humans, scientists who study humans have to be aware that their studies are on a specific group of people who are not necessarily "typical", and they have to take this into account when they do their conclusions. We could use criminals for experiments, but criminals are not a random sample of the population, either. Whenever scientists study something, whether it be humans, plants, rocks, or chemicals, they have to be aware of whether they are studying a random sample of the item, or a specific group or type of item. The scientists who cannot understand this concept should lose their title of "scientist".

I suspect that if we were to study the consumption of potato chips, we would find that the people who eat the largest amount of potato chips are less intelligent than the rest of the population. However, I would not come to the conclusion that potato chips interfere with intellectual development.

We can and should analyze scientists and pass judgment on whether they are showing signs of intelligence or signs of faulty thinking. Everybody makes mistakes, but we should pass judgment on when a scientist is making a mistake, and when he is simply incapable of thinking at the level necessary for a scientist, in which case he should lose the title of "scientist". We should not waste our time discussing issues with them, funding their research, or letting them contaminate scientific journals or school books with their stupid theories.

I am not implying that potato chips, video games, dolls, and marijuana do not affect our mind. There is no doubt that the activities we engage in have an effect on our brain. Our brain learns to walk, talk, drive automobiles, and use computers. Our brain can obviously react to our activities. When we practice something over and over, our mind changes something internally in order to allow us to memorize it. Therefore, if a child spends a lot of his time playing with dolls or video games, his brain is going to react to that activity. However, we don't know what that reaction is.

There may be some video games that actually help some people with their coordination, reflexes, memory, or concentration. There may be other games that encourage undesirable qualities, such as anger, irritability, impatience, or hatred. Some of the games that children play, such as "Simon Says" or "Red Light, Green Light", might be useful for helping the children become accustomed to listening to people before making a decision. Unfortunately, we are not going to figure out what effect marijuana, dolls, video games, or potato chips have on us simply by looking at the people who use them. That is not the proper way to do experiments.

If we were to analyze scientists, I think that most of the psychologists and other social scientists would lose their title of "scientist" and have to find another job. Don't consider this to be cruel. Everybody benefits when everybody is doing a job that they can actually perform properly. We are not cruel when we tell a person to find a job that they can do properly and quit pretending that they are something that they are not.

We should pass judgment on "ordinary" people, also

Most people consider themselves to be a super genius, and as a result, the majority of people want to vote for the leaders of society, and they want to influence our policies for crime, abortion, religion, and Arab terrorists. Different people have different ways of trying to influence society. Some of them discuss issues with their friends, others call government officials on the telephone, some send email messages to scientists, business executives, journalists, or police departments, and some people join demonstrations in the city streets.

It makes sense for people to discuss issues, but the people who are trying to influence the world with demonstrations or angry phone calls are not helping anybody understand or deal with our problems.

A more sensible policy is for society to tell everybody that if they want to get involved in determining our future, then they must behave like scientists. They must research whatever issue interests them, keep their emotions under control, and develop their brilliant ideas into a document that they post on the Internet for the entire world to see so that we can decide if they truly have something to say that is worth listening to.

By demanding that the public post their brilliant analyses, we accomplished two objectives. First, we stop the obnoxious attempts to manipulate us through intimidation, fear, and guilt. Second, we give the public the opportunity to show us their intellectual talents. If they show signs of having the qualities necessary to be a "cultural scientist", then they would be encouraged to continue providing analyses, and they would be eligible for the influential positions, but if they show signs of faulty thinking, they would be classified as mentally incompetent and told to keep their mouth shut. If a person refuses to develop his brilliant ideas into a document and post it on the Internet, then we should assume that he has nothing intelligent to say.

Most people have never developed any of their brilliant ideas into documents that they could post on the Internet, but a few people have done so, and that gives us the opportunity to analyze their documents. For example, I recently noticed this article about the issue of diabetes, fruit, and sugar. The author disagrees with what we could call the "official" theory, which is that modern humans do not have high tolerance for sugar because our natural diet during prehistoric times was low on sugar. According to this official theory, our primitive ancestors did not have much access to fruits, and the fruits in prehistoric times were much smaller, lower in sugar, and much less plentiful. According to this official theory, diabetes is a serious problem today because our bodies were not designed for the high sugar content of modern diets. In addition to having access to pure sugar, we now have access to fruit all year long, and people have been breeding the fruits, sometimes inadvertently, to make them sweeter and larger.

The author of that article claims that humans have a very high tolerance for sugar. She points out that sugarcane, mangoes, pineapples, and many other fruits are large, naturally very sweet, and available all year round. After realizing that she was referring to tropical fruits, I didn't want to waste my time reading the rest of her article, so I jumped to the bottom to see some of her conclusions, and this may explain her attitude:
Early humans may very well have had access to fruit for most or even all of the year. The fruiting seasons we witness in cooler climates—with most fruit appearing in the summer—doesn’t necessarily apply to our evolutionary homeland closer to the equator.

My analysis of her analysis is that her mind doesn't think very well. I would say that there are two major flaws with her reasoning. First, she acknowledges that fruit is available only during the summer in the northern climates, but she disregards the possibility that the people in those northern climates have adapted to that type of diet. She assumes that people in the northern climates have the exact same dietary needs as their distant ancestors in the tropics.

Unfortunately, we do not have the ability to determine how the dietary needs of humans have changed when some of them moved out of the tropics and into other areas of the world. We do not even have the ability to determine if there are dietary differences between different races, or between men and women. Humans, after they left the tropics, evolved into a variety of different races, and I think it is idiotic to assume that we have changed on the outside while remaining exactly the same on the inside. Even within Africa we find a variety of races. It is ridiculous for her to assume that humans can evolve into different races with different diets while retaining exactly the same dietary characteristics.

The humans who moved into areas with less sunshine lost some of their skin pigmentation as a result of having less exposure to sunlight, and we ought to consider the possibility that they lost some of their tolerance for sugar because they didn't have access to large quantities of sugar.

The second flaw with her analysis is that she is assuming that our distant ancestors ate large amounts of fruit with a high sugar content because they lived in the tropics. However, there are a lot of animals that live in the tropics that do not eat much or any fruit, or they eat fruit with a low sugar content. For all we know, our distant ancestors lived mainly on leaves, mushrooms, roots, vegetables, nuts, insects, and/or small animals.

We don't know much about our distant ancestors, so it would be foolish to design our diet according to what we assume our distant ancestors in the tropics were eating. Imagine a more extreme example. Imagine if she discovered that some of our ancestors were fish, and so she announces that we should be living in the water and eating plankton.

We all make mistakes, but I would say that this woman is displaying reasoning that is so faulty that she should not be considered "intelligent". If she has other analyses that are more intelligent, then perhaps her article about sugar was stupid because she didn't put much effort into it. However, the reason I wanted to criticize her article is to point out to you that we can and should analyze one another's analytical abilities and pass judgment on who among us truly is intelligent.

You may wonder what harm there is in allowing people to post stupid opinions on the Internet. The problem is that their opinions are appearing in our searches. Some people might say they have a right to post their opinions, but I would respond that I have a right to search through information that is sensible.

The Internet is one giant pot of information. We need to create categories for it, and the people who do not qualify as "scientists" should not be able to post anything into the section for serious information. When we want to search for serious educational information, we should be able to search through the documents that are created by people who have qualified as "scientists". We should not have to search through documents from children, lunatics, and criminals.

Furthermore, some of these incompetent people are producing magazine articles, school books, and television shows. If we were to restrict the influential positions to the people who classify as a "cultural scientist," then there will be a noticeable improvement in the quality of our television programs, schools, government agencies, media, and businesses.

Silence is not intelligence

I don't study the Bible, but one of Solomon's Proverbs is supposedly:
Better to remain silent and thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt.
This idiotic philosophy encourages people to deceive one another by taking advantage of one of our emotional qualities, which is to assume the best of a person until proven otherwise. Humans have a tendency to look at everything from the positive side. Our natural tendency is to assume a person is intelligent and honest. Therefore, when a group of strangers are having a discussion, the people who make stupid remarks will be regarded as stupid, but the person who is very quiet and makes only a few remarks of no importance will be regarded as more intelligent than the people who are making stupid remarks. However, he may be even dumber than the people making the stupid remarks. He may be so dumb that he is overwhelmed with the discussion.

We have to understand and control our emotions. When we encounter strangers who tend to be silent, we have to do the opposite of what our emotions want to do. Specifically, we should assume a person is stupid until proven otherwise. We should make everybody earn their position in life. If a person wants to be considered intelligent, then let him prove his intelligence to us.

The influential positions in society should be restricted to people who are above-average in leadership abilities. We should analyze their analyses and pass judgment on whether they are showing signs of intelligence or signs of faulty thinking. We should not allow people into top positions if they have not proven that they have exceptional intelligence. We should not put people into leadership because of promises or potential.

In the world today, only a few people have bothered to post their opinions on the Internet, but if we create a new society, then we should require everybody who wants to be considered for top leadership position to prove to us that they are exceptional in thinking. They should be required to post some intelligent analyses, preferably on a subject that is related to the position that they are trying to get.

"Post it, or shut up."

We don't expect or require any of our leaders in business, government, schools, or science to have websites, or to post their brilliant opinions for us to admire and learn from. We don't even expect government leaders to write their own speeches. If a person in a leadership position has a website, we assume it will contain personal information or a resume, not their analyses of life.

The lack of analyses on the Internet might not seem strange to you until you consider that most people, especially men with college degrees, consider themselves to be super-geniuses. Almost every man believes that he has the most brilliant opinions on religion, crime, politics, and many other issues. However, they are not sharing their brilliant opinions with the world. Occasionally some of the men get intoxicated and give lectures on how brilliant they are and how stupid everybody else is, but they should do the world a favor by posting their brilliant ideas for all of us to learn from and benefit from.

Schools should teach children that if they expect to be given influential positions in society or considered to be among the most intelligent people, then they are going to have to earn that position by showing evidence of their intelligence. Schools should give children practice in researching issues and producing analyses. Schools should teach children that when they become adults, if they believe that they have something intelligent to say, they should develop their brilliant opinions into documents, videos, or audio files, and post them on the Internet for everybody to see. Schools should teach children to "Put up or shut up". A more modern expression would be, "Post it, or shut up."

After a person has posted his brilliant opinions on the Internet, we can pass judgment on whether he has good analytical abilities. If so, we would give him the title of "cultural scientist" and welcome him to the discussion of what to do with our future, but if not, he should be classified as having "substandard" analytical abilities and prohibited from positions of influence.

Setting up a new society like this would require a transition period, but after it is over, the adults who believe that they have something intelligent to say will be in the habit of developing their opinions and posting them on the Internet. That will allow us to classify a certain percentage of the population as "cultural scientists", and we will be able to classify the others as either "unknown", or as "incompetent".

Everybody regularly needs a slap in the face

As I mentioned earlier in this file, we are all very arrogant. I can see the arrogance in myself, and since I am a human, I inherited my mental qualities from my human ancestors. Since you also had human ancestors, and since we are related at some point in history, don't let your arrogance fool you into believing that you evolved from a different branch of apes that didn't have such extreme arrogance. We all need to acknowledge this problem and try to control it.

In this era, we need to help one another keep their arrogance under control. We have to essentially slap one another in the face once in a while and tell each other to climb down from the pedestal and face the reality that we are just another human. College graduates need to be occasionally reminded to stop titillating themselves about how smart they are and put their effort into doing something useful. Women are not as arrogant as men, but even they have arrogance that is too high for this modern world. For example, there are women who need training courses on how to put air in their children's bicycle tires, but they think they are just as talented as the men.

We are not cruel when we analyze a person's intellectual work and pass judgment on whether they are showing signs of intelligence or signs of stupidity. We want to encourage everybody to try different activities, but if a person repeatedly fails to produce intelligent documents, we are doing them a favor by telling them to give up trying to be a genius, and look for something more productive to do with their time.

Some of the arrogant geniuses waste many hours each week arguing over religion, abortion, crime, and politics. They believe that they must get involved with these issues, but they are not helping themselves or anybody else. When they spend their time trying to be a genius, they will frequently become frustrated that nobody listens to them, and they will waste their time on an unproductive activity. They have nothing of value to contribute to the discussions. The world will be better for everybody - including the stupid people! - if they would keep their mouth shut and let the more intelligent people deal with society's problems.

Likewise, a lot of scientists and other supposedly intelligent people might become more productive if they would dampen each others' tendency to titillate themselves with praise and awards, and encourage one another to spend more time discussing issues and doing something intelligent with their talent. They should try to ignore the fact that they are more intelligent than most people and remind themselves that children in the future will be more intelligent than the scientists of today.

Physicists and mathematicians should be judged, also

Some physicists and mathematicians have posted their analyses on the Internet, and I would say that some of them are also showing signs of faulty reasoning. They produce a lot of theories, but nothing beneficial ever seems to come from them. As I pointed out in other files, the ability to perform math seems to be completely separate from the ability to think. Therefore, it is possible for a person to be both intellectually defective and emotionally defective while having phenomenal math abilities.

Consider the issue of "time". What is time? If we cut an apple in half, and put one half into a refrigerator, the piece in the refrigerator will remain fresh longer. We might conclude that time is running slower inside the refrigerator, but the refrigerator is merely reducing the heat in the apple. Heat is the kinetic energy of the atoms, and by reducing their kinetic energy, they become less physically active, which makes their chemical activities more sluggish. This creates the illusion that a refrigerator can slow down time. Since radioactivity has nothing to do with kinetic energy, putting a radioactive item into a refrigerator does nothing to extend its life.

If we put an apple and a radioactive item in a rocket and send it through space at an extremely high speed, the physicists claim that the apple will remain fresh longer, and that the radioactive item will also have a longer life. However, even if that actually happens, that doesn't prove that time is slowing down as a result of high-speed motion. It may merely mean that high-speed motion can cause both nuclear reactions and chemical reactions to become sluggish.

If matter is just a form of space, as I described here, then gravity could be the result of matter being a different density than space, in which case putting matter into a gravitational field may also alter how the electrons and nucleus react, thereby creating the illusion that gravity can also affect time.

For the past few decades, physicists have been developing lots of theories about wormholes, time, quarks, and Higgs Bosons, but what comes of it? None of these theories have any value. These physicists may be phenomenal at math, but they are not demonstrating good intellectual abilities. Some of their theories are indistinguishable from science fiction. Someone made this amusing video based on a video game, but it inadvertently shows how stupid the wormhole and portal theories are.

Nova recently produced a television series called The Fabric Of The Cosmos, and it suggests that it may be possible to travel backwards and forwards in time, and that there may be an infinite number of universes occurring at the same time, but each one at different moment in time. In case you fail to grasp the absurdity of that theory, it means that there are an infinite number of copies of you, but each of you is at a different moment in time.

But wait! Before you criticize that theory, consider that being able to travel backwards in time means that every time somebody travels back in time and alters the past, they create a new, altered universe. Therefore, that means that there are an infinite number of "natural" universes, and an additional infinite number of universes are being created by the infinite number of people who are traveling backwards in time.

Neither you nor I can travel back in time, but that's only because we haven't developed the technology yet, and none of the future generations have bothered to give it to us. You might respond that the future generations have not yet been born, but if we can travel into the future, that means the future is already the distant past. The most likely reason that the future generations don't visit us is because every other era is more desirable than ours. However, if we start the process of changing our world, we might find lots of people from the future coming to visit us! They might be waiting for us to get the process started. So, maybe that thought will motivate you to get moving!

I don't know how to explain the universe, but the point I want to make is that physicists are creating theories that do not have the slightest bit of supporting evidence. Some of their theories are so stupid, and there are so many Jewish physicists, that I wonder if some of them are deliberately creating stupid theories simply as a way of hurting society. By teaching idiotic theories, the students waste their time, and they may end up in projects that go nowhere, such as searching for "God particles" or "wormholes". Also, by teaching nonsense, the intellectually defective students will be able to graduate and become physics professors and physicists.

Scientists ought to be analyzing the theories of one another and passing judgment on which of them has truly earned the title of "scientist". A "physicist" who is good in math but not very intelligent should be described as a "mathematician", not a "physicist" or a "scientist". We should not waste our money on the support of physicists who create idiotic theories. Everybody can create idiotic theories, and for free! For example:

A free theory of the universe, created just for you!
By Eric Hufschmid
At the center of the universe is an anomaly in space that is continuously generating bursts and streams of matter and energy. Some of the matter remains as atoms, and some forms stars and galaxies. Those galaxies and atoms travel through space, and eventually get so far from the anomaly that they convert back into space.

It is so unlikely for molecules on a planet to bump into each other in such a manner that they create life, that it happens only once every few zillion galaxies.

The future humans will eventually evolve so much intelligence that they figure out how to get out of the Milky Way before it converts back into space, and they will travel towards the center of the universe. When they arrive, they will discover all of the intelligent aliens that developed zillions of years before humans. Those aliens will have a big party to welcome the humans, with explosions of supernova rather than minuscule fireworks, and then they will all live happily ever after. The end.

We can also create lots of fun theories about "black holes". For example, a black hole may be an unstable entity that spews matter and/or energy from one or both of its poles, thereby creating the illusion of a spinning lighthouse when viewed from certain directions. If a black hole can eject matter faster than it attracts it, then it will eventually be reduced to a size at which it cannot hold itself together, and it will either explode or start pulsating between a black hole and a dense star, thereby providing astronomers with an interesting visual spectacle and creating what we interpret as "gravitational waves".

I think physicists have already provided us with enough evidence to conclude that mathematical abilities are not a sign of intelligence; that math abilities are a completely separate and independent mental ability. People who are good in math should not automatically be considered as "scientists" or as "intelligent".

A leader should meet our arbitrary standards

The people who are passing judgment on who among us can be an airline pilot or a dentist can be referred to as "voters", and people who want to become pilots or dentists can be referred to as "candidates". When you think of "voting" and "candidates" in this manner, it might help you to understand how we can improve the system that we use to select government officials. Specifically, we should select government officials in the same manner that we select pilots, dentists, and engineers. The only difference between selecting a dentist and selecting a government official is that the candidates are applying for different jobs, and therefore, the voters need to look for slightly different qualities.

To select a government official, we need to analyze the political candidates to determine whether they are showing signs of intelligence, leadership abilities, creativity, and independence, or if they are showing signs of faulty reasoning, plagiarism, stupidity, emotional insecurity, or mental disorders. In order to do this, we need a database that has their entire life history, including all of their schoolwork and all of the documents that they've written.

Imagine if such a database existed right now. What would we find if we looked at the entries for Mitt Romney? Would we find that he has produced some intelligent analyses? Would we find evidence that he has already performed well in leadership roles? I suspect that he and other political candidates have written only a few documents during their life, primarily for school, and that their documents are nearly indistinguishable from those written by "ordinary" people.

It is possible that Mitt Romney, if forced to explain his opinions on evolution, would create a document that is as idiotic as those 10 facts I mentioned earlier. I also suspect that an analysis of his life would show us that he is a submissive follower, not an independent leader. I haven't investigated him, but I noticed that he was Mormon missionary and a Bishop for the Mormon church when he was younger, and he is still giving 10% of his income to that church.

Why would he become a missionary and a Bishop? And why does he continue to give 10% of his income to that church? Has he analyzed what the church is doing with their money and come to the conclusion that they are spending it wisely? I don't think so. I think that his behavior shows that he follows and obeys other people; he does not think for himself or provide guidance to people.

If Romney was following somebody I respect, then I would have more respect for him, but he is following the Mormon church. Each of us can choose to admire any of billions of people who are alive or dead, so who would select the Mormon church officials? Romney has chosen to follow a group of religious fanatics who operate in secrecy. Furthermore, he did not merely look up to them for guidance; rather, he joined their church as a Bishop and promoted their philosophy! I would say that his decision to join those goofballs is evidence that his thinking is faulty, and that he is unqualified for a top leadership position.

It is possible that Romney is actually very intelligent but has never bother to put much effort into thinking about the Mormon religion. Perhaps if Chris Powell would start a new television series, Extreme Makeover, Thinking Edition, he could inspire Romney to put some effort into thinking about whether the Mormon church philosophy is worth following. With some inspiration, Romney would certainly do a better job of thinking. Of course, if a leader needs Chris Powell to push him into thinking, then he is not suited for leadership.

It is also possible that Romney is a "Wolf in Sheep's Clothing" who is only pretending to be a Mormon. As you may have learned by now, a lot of Jews pretend to be Muslims, atheists, Freemasons, or Catholics in order to infiltrate other organizations and manipulate people. However, if that is what Romney is, then he's not a leader; he is a member of organized crime.

As of September 2012, I suspect that Romney is as mentally incompetent as he appears, and that he is also a submissive puppet who is being blackmailed, perhaps over pedophilia while he was in the Mormon church. I suppose he is a puppet of some group of Jews since he supports Israel.

I don't want to give the impression that Romney should not be elected as president. Since both Obama and Romney are under the control of Jewish criminals, we are actually voting for their "owners". Therefore, we have to consider which group of Jews has control of each candidate, and how much control they have. At the moment, Obama seems to be showing the most independence. However, if a better group of people get control of Romney, then Romney would be a better puppet.

Many people interpret Romney's extreme wealth as evidence of extreme intelligence, but making money has nothing to do with leadership abilities, intelligence, creativity, honesty, or responsibility. Shirley Temple and Michael Jackson, for example, made more money during their childhood than most of us make during our entire adult lives.

Political candidates have devised lots of excuses for their failures and their lack of intelligent documents. For example, a congressman might claim that he cannot do much of anything because he is just one of hundreds of other people in the Congress, and none of them have any authority. When he is tje president and continues to achieve nothing, then he will use the excuse that his lack of achievements is because the Congress is opposing him.

We have to stop tolerating excuses. If any person was truly as exceptionally talented or intelligent as they claim to be, regardless of which area they are exceptional in, then their exceptional qualities would not only be evident, it would be obvious. Nobody could have exceptional athletic abilities without it being easily observed, and nobody can be exceptionally coordinated without there being lots of evidence of it. Nobody can be exceptionally beautiful, either, or have an exceptional memory, or be exceptionally strong without the rest of us easily observing their amazing qualities. Excuses are evidence that the person is not what he claims to be.

When a person wants a top leadership position in government, business, science, or schools, we should look through their history and pass judgment on whether they have shown signs of leadership abilities. We should not tolerate the excuse that a person simply hasn't had the opportunity to show us how brilliant he is. Every day each of us has the opportunity to create brilliant opinions, do scientific research, develop new technology, and analyze other people's opinions. Every day we have an opportunity to show people how brilliant we are. Modern technology has also made it so easy for us to produce videos that nobody today can use the excuse that videos are too time-consuming or expensive to produce.

It is possible that some people have been too busy with their school, job, and family to put much effort into producing intelligent documents or videos, but we should never assume that a person who has achieved nothing has some hidden talent. We should wait for people to show their talent. We should select candidates for leadership positions according to their actual achievements, not by their potential or their promises.

We need population quality control
We must think about crimes, not react to them
We have strong emotional reactions to people who commit certain types of crimes, such as theft, murder, and rape. Those crimes directly affect our lives, and as a result, our emotions react with anger towards the people committing those crimes. At the other extreme are the crimes that do not directly affect us, such as false police reports, insider trading, and journalists who spread propaganda about 9/11. Our emotions are not stimulated by those crimes. This concept also applies to animals. An animal will react to theft, murder, and rape, but it will not react to false police reports, insider trading, or propaganda.

People who are very stupid or who don't want to think will have little or no reaction to the journalists who lie about 9/11. We need a certain amount of intelligence and a certain desire to think in order to understand the significance of such crimes. It is our intellect, not our emotions, that cause us to become upset with journalists who lie to us.

If we allow our emotions to dominate our policies on crime, then many very serious crimes will be considered as insignificant. We have to control our emotions and use our intellect when developing policies towards crime.

Crimes should be judged according to their effect on society

None of us are perfect. We all occasionally misbehave or do something idiotic. However, there are differences in how we misbehave, and how often we misbehave, and how we react to people who misbehave.

At one extreme are the crimes that most people consider to be trivial, such as interrupting a person when he speaks, or grabbing at food on the dinner table before other people are ready to start eating. These "crimes" are not against the law. Instead, we deal with those crimes by reprimanding the person, or by giving him an unpleasant facial expression. At the other extreme are the crimes, such as murder, that annoy us to such an extent that we want to seriously hurt or execute the person.

How do we determine the seriousness of a crime? How do we determine the punishment for a crime? How do we determine whether a criminal should be killed, evicted from society, reprimanded, or have restrictions on his behavior?

For example, consider what we should do with Joseph Baken who, in August 2012, tried to do a backflip on a public street. He made a mistake and hit his face on the sidewalk, resulting in some abrasions and bruises on his face (photo).

The Internet has thousands of videos in which people, usually young men, hurt themselves as a result of their attempts to entertain themselves. Most accident victims deal with the problem rather quietly, and sometimes they or their friends post a video of their accident on the Internet. However, Joseph Baken and/or his friends, who are homosexual, decided instead to call the police and claim that he was beaten by three men who hate homosexuals. Fortunately, before the police arrested anybody, they found a security video that showed Baken doing a backflip and falling on his face. When presented with that evidence, Baken confessed to lying about being attacked by three men.

What crime did Baken commit? Is it a crime to do somersaults on public streets? We certainly do not want to encourage people to use public streets for circus acts or gymnastic events, but most people don't consider his somersault to be a crime. Instead, our legal system considered him guilty of filing a false police report. What should his punishment be? Our legal system decided to make him pay a $300 fine. He was also sentenced to 180 days in jail, but the jail time was suspended. So, his $300 fine made his crime equal in seriousness to some expensive parking tickets.

A few days before Joseph Baken made his false police report, a lesbian named Charlie Rogers claimed that three masked men broke into her house, took off her clothing, carved homophobic slurs into her skin with a knife, and tried to set her and her house on fire. She later admitted that she had staged the incident because, as she posted on Facebook a few days earlier, she was going to be a "catalyst" to "make things better for everyone".

I would describe the false police reports of Rogers and Baken as being much more serious than a parking ticket because they are crimes that affect all of mankind. Their crimes are more serious than theft, burglary, and rape. When somebody steals your wallet, they are affecting your life in a minor way, and when somebody rapes you, they are affecting you in a more serious manner. However, when homosexuals make false claims of being attacked, they are affecting everybody in the world by promoting the propaganda that there are violent, psychotic heterosexuals scattered around the world and attacking homosexuals simply because they hate homosexuals. These false accusations also cause the police to waste time and resources on investigations of crimes that never occurred. Furthermore, it is conceivable that some people will coincidentally match the descriptions of the phony attackers. This could seriously affect their job and their relationships with other people, and they could even be arrested and convicted for a crime that never occurred.

Before I continue, notice that Jews do this trick all the time. They stage anti-Semitic events, and then they call the police and complain that anti-Semites have sprayed swastikas on their gravestones, or attacked them physically. The Jewish college girl who complained about a swastika on her door was caught because a security camera showed that she was the person who created that swastika. Her crime is much more serious than a burglary or rape because it affects the entire world and the future generations. These people are committing a crime against humanity. They are not simply stealing something from one person or raping one person. They are trying to manipulating the human race. They are troublemakers. They are dirt in a transmission.

When a person steals something from a retail store, he is simply behaving like an animal that is following his emotions to take whatever it is attracted to. By comparison, when Jews stage anti-Semitic attacks, they are doing so to manipulate all of us. They are committing a crime against us all. The same is true of women who lie about being raped and homosexuals who lie about being victims of anti-gay attacks.

Joseph Baken, Charlie Rogers, and the Jews believe that they can change the world through deception. Their philosophy is that we are stupid animals who can be manipulated through simple tricks. It is true that businesses, government officials, crime networks, and individuals can profit from deception in a variety of ways, but the world is not going to improve in this manner. Imagine if thousands of people were making false accusations every day. They would be tormenting the world, not making it better.

When we tolerate this sort of crime, we are encouraging more of it. If a homosexual or a Jew only has to worry about paying a $300 fine for getting caught, then the reward is worth the risk. The reward is manipulating the world, and that is certainly worth $300, especially to somebody who has a lot of money.

Crimes should be judged according to their effect on society, not according to how human emotions react to them. For another example, consider the recent arrest of Brandon Raub. He is another Ron Paul supporter who promotes the exact same propaganda that the other phony 9/11 "truth seekers" promote, such as claiming that 9/11 was an inside job by the mysterious shadow government and Illuminati. He is just another liar who is trying to deflect attention away from Israel and Jews, although we cannot be sure if he is doing this because he is voluntarily working with the Jews, or if he is doing it because of bribery or blackmail.

I suspect that his arrest was a staged event by the same Jewish crime network that is responsible for the 9/11 attack. I suspect the Jews told Raub to post those idiotic messages on Facebook, and that many (possibly all) of the people who responded to his messages were participating in this deception. Then the Jews sent complaints about the messages to the FBI so that they could arrange for his arrest. The FBI ensured that his arrest occurred around lots of people with cameras. The Jews told their cohorts to give the arrest lots of publicity, and they arranged for the mysterious Rutherford Institute to provide free legal services for Raub.

Since nobody is directly hurt by this staged event, most people would consider it to be a trivial crime, but this type of crime is worse for society than rape and murder. These crimes are committed by organized criminals. Some of the people who helped bring publicity to this staged arrest might not have realized what they were doing, but we should investigate all of the people who have a connection to the arrest or its publicity. The people who are guilty of voluntarily participating in this event should be considered too dangerous for society. People who choose to participate in organized crimes are a much more serious threat than an individual criminal who steals food, and we don't owe such destructive people any pity, and we do not have to make any attempt to rehabilitate them.

For another example, consider pedophilia. An "ordinary" pedophile is somebody who commits a sex crime against a child, but Jerry Sandusky may be involved with a pedophile network, and he may also be involved with murdering people who stand up to him. In such a case, his network is doing more than simply committing pedophilia. They are adversely affecting large numbers of people.

Crime networks are much more serious than individual criminals. A network of murderous pedophiles is equivalent to shoplifters that are working in teams and who murder the people who try to stop them. This makes them worse, from the point of view of society, than individual criminals.

Most people determine the seriousness of a crime according to their emotional reaction to it. Since our emotions do not respond to a false police report, most people regard false police reports as a trivial crime. We need to design a government that analyzes crimes according to its effect on society, not according to human emotional reactions to it. Jews and homosexuals who manipulate us with false anti-Semitic attacks and false anti-gay attacks should be considered some of the worst criminals of all. They should not be tolerated.

The Jews are manipulating entire nations, especially Germany, with their false anti-Semitic operations. They are also extorting enormous amounts of Holocaust payments from various nations. These Jews are doing much more damage to the human race than people who steal food, smoke marijuana, or cheat on their welfare payments.

Some "publicity stunts" are "crimes"

Businesses, political candidates, entertainers, and other groups are often having what we refer to as a "publicity stunt". These are typically silly but harmless methods of bringing attention to themselves. However, some people engage in deceptive publicity stunts. For an example in the news right now, there are accusations that Kristen Stewart, Rupert Sanders, and others faked an extramarital affair. I don't know who these people are, but if the accusations are true, they could be described as deceiving the public in order to bring attention to themselves in an attempt to help their career in the entertainment business.

Most people have little or no reaction to this type of deception because they don't feel as if anybody is a victim. This deceptive publicity stunt brings up two issues that I've mentioned before. One is that we should not be concerned about whether people are following the law. Instead, we should focus on their effect on society. There are a lot of people who are technically honest, but they are destructive or irritating to society. The other issue is that there are many people who behave in a irritating manner, but we tolerate it because only a few people behave that way. The example I used was that some people pick up items in a market or retail store and then later decide that they don't want it, and they abandon it wherever they happen to be rather than put it back where it belongs. This irresponsible, selfish behavior is tolerable only when a few people do it, but if all of us were doing this on a regular basis, it would create an incredible mess in the markets and retail stores.

This same concept applies to the entertainers who stage deceptive publicity stunts. When only a few people do this once in a while, it is tolerable, but imagine if everybody was doing this on a routine basis. Imagine if every day thousands of people in the military, schools, businesses, and churches were faking relationships, extramarital affairs, pregnancies, and abortions.

When living creatures reproduce, they create a lot of subtle variations of themselves. Nature takes care of this by determining which of those variations is beneficial, and which is destructive. The human world today is no longer following nature. It is now up to us to pass judgment on who among us is displaying inappropriate qualities.

Society doesn't benefit from publicity stunts, so we should create an economy in which they never occur at all, but some stunts are harmless. For example, the chairman of the Austin automobile company drove around the world in one of their cars. That stunt didn't hurt anybody, although it didn't help their sales, either. It was a waste of gasoline and tires.

However, if the accusations are true that Kristen Stewart and other entertainers faked a extramarital relationship, then they are exhibiting the undesirable qualities of an animal or a primitive savage. They are not thinking of what's best for society; they are thinking of what's best for themselves. They are not team members who are working with us; they are savages who are manipulating and exploiting us. They consider us to be stepping stones to wealth and fame. Their goal is to help themselves to phenomenal amounts of money and fame, not to help society.

They might respond by pointing out that everybody is selfish, but we have to pass judgment on when people are going too far with their selfishness. Imagine living in a world in which everybody's primary concern was becoming wealthy and famous, and imagine everybody willing to deceive one another in an attempt to increase their wealth and fame. That type of world would not be a "team"; rather, it would be a group of independent, selfish savages who are fighting one another for the limited resources.

The people who are cheating and abusing us in order to become rich and famous may be "nice" people, and thousands of years ago we may have been very proud to have them in our tribe, but the world has changed. Some of the qualities that were valuable in prehistoric times are destructive today. People today must consider their effect on society. We are team members today, not savages fighting one another for resources. Furthermore, people today must be willing to share the resources. We cannot all be pampered Kings and Queens. Actually, I don't think anybody should be a pampered King or Queen. I think everybody should be a "team member".

Nature used to make the decisions of which children had the "desirable" qualities, but today we must make the decisions of who reproduces. We must pass judgment on one another's behavior and decide who among us is showing the qualities that we want for the next generation.

Edward Bernays promoted deception as a way of manipulating the public. His reasoning was that the public is so stupid that the only way we can improve the world is to deceive them. It is certainly true that the majority of people do not think much better than a monkey, but I don't believe that deception will improve the world. I think the reason the Jews promote deception is the same reason that they are involved with blackmail, murder, and bribery. Specifically, they cannot impress us with their intelligence. We ignore their opinions on how to improve the world. They react with bitterness, and they claim that the public is too stupid to understand them.

Jews promote the theory that we must deceive the stupid public, but they actually want to deceive everybody because they cannot compete with us in an honest manner. The only way they can get people to listen to their brilliant theories is by getting control of society and suppressing their competition. When Ayn Rand and Edward Bernays are the only authors, then they can get people to read their books.

We should not tolerate people who deceive us. If a person truly has talent, regardless of whether is it is physical or mental, then he can achieve his goals in an honest manner. If a person cannot achieve his goals in an honest manner, that is his problem. We should not allow him to manipulate us.

There is an entertainer named Steve-O who performs all sorts of dangerous and idiotic stunts with his friends, but from what little I know about them, he and his friends are doing these stunts only to themselves, and they are taking responsibility for their injuries. He and his friends seem to be suffering from a serious mental and/or physical problem that prevents them from having a "normal" life, but if they keep their stunts to themselves, they are not harming society, and so from our point of view, they are better people than those who deceive us.

Steve-O brings up an interesting issue. Within a few minutes of watching Steve-O, everybody realizes that there is something seriously wrong with him, and that might cause some people to be afraid of him, or regard him as dangerous. However, if he is keeping his problem to himself, and if he is honest, he is actually a better person than the people who are deceiving us.

When you encounter somebody, you have to keep in mind that you may be seeing a deceptive image that they have created for themselves. You may not be seeing what they really are. Many of the people in Hollywood appear to be wonderful, but look at the evidence that there is tremendous pedophilia, murder, blackmail, extortion, and abuse going on with those people. Many of them appear to be wonderful people only because they are fooling you with a phony image of themselves. Did you listen to Corey Feldman claim that pedophilia is the "Number 1 problem" in Hollywood? Don't assume that he is exaggerating. Take a look at the "ritual" movies they make, and their sex and torture movies.

The Hollywood people appear to be wonderful and honest, whereas Steve-O seems crazy, but the reason may be simply because Steve-O is honest and letting us see what he really is. In such a case, he is less dangerous than the deceptive people in Hollywood who are hiding their murders, pedophilia, and blackmail. Don't let your emotions determine your view of a person. Use your intellect to analyze them.

Steve-O brings up one other interesting issue. Most people with physical or mental problems don't make any attempt to understand the cause of their problem, but everybody ought to be wondering if their problems can be corrected. They should check to see if their problems are due to allergies, faulty organs, hormone deficiencies, or digestive problems. As I mentioned in another file, my father had headaches throughout his life until he stopped eating dairy products. Those headaches had a bad effect on his attitude and life by making him irritable and miserable. Steve-O, or maybe even you, may also be suffering from something that is correctable. As I pointed out in other files, I am now feeling incredibly better now that I realize that I was low on thyroid hormones. We should change our society to make it easy for people to do analyses on their physical and mental health, and on their children.

How serious was Pussy Riot's crime?

Russia is too secretive to know the details of what is going on with the musical group, Pussy Riot, but my impression is that they do not have the talent to be successful as musicians or singers, and so the only way they can get attention is with obnoxious and sexual behavior. Vladimir Putin can sing better than them, and I seriously suspect that I could both sing and play instruments better than them! They have so little talent that I wonder if they are just another fraud being supported by the Jews as a way of causing trouble for Russia.

Israel Shamir, one of the Jews in the "truth movement" who pretends to be an opponent of Zionism and Israel, claims America is supporting Pussy Riot in order to hurt Putin. He may be correct that the American government is involved with Pussy Riot, but it would certainly be the Jews within America who are behind the support.

Note that the Jews are doing this type of trick in America also. Specifically, the Jews promote the worst behaved, most disgusting musicians they can find in order to encourage violence, bad attitudes, sexual perversion, and drugs. Don't be fooled into thinking that the American people are sending letters and making phone calls to the Hollywood Jews and asking for disgusting musicians. The Jews are forcing these musicians on America.

In February 2012, four members of Pussy Riot went into a Moscow church and gave an obnoxious performance while wearing hoods (photo). The security personnel quickly responded and made them leave the church. About 10 days later, a video of their stunt appeared on the Internet, apparently anonymously, and eventually three of the four were arrested.

After they were arrested, Jews around the world, especially in the "truth movement" and alternative media, began promoting the arrest as evidence that the Putin regime is a brutal dictatorship. We in America rarely get news reports about what the Russian people are doing, so you ought to wonder, of all of the millions of people in Russia, why would the "news Jews" give so much publicity to four of the most obnoxious Russians? Why should Americans support those jerks?

The event becomes even more suspicious when you realize that dozens of American and European entertainers made public statements in support of Pussy Riot. Why would such people as Madonna and Paul McCartney support a group of untalented, obnoxious jerks? This is evidence that the Jews are using Pussy Riot to manipulate us. It is also more evidence that Paul McCartney really is a blackmailed fraud who must do whatever the Jews tell him to do.

It is possible that Pussy Riot staged that event merely for their own publicity, and when the Jews heard about it, they decided to arrange for their arrest in order to manipulate public opinion against Putin. In such a case, Pussy Riot would be guilty of being obnoxious jerks who are an irritation to society.

However, the Jews, regardless of whether they staged the event or took advantage of it, are committing a crime that is just as serious as the Jews who stage anti-Semitic attacks. They are trying to manipulate Russia, and they are trying to trick other nations into support their manipulation. They are abusing the entire world. The Jews are using Pussy Riot to manipulate public opinion with deception rather than intelligent reasoning. And Israel Shamir is trying to shift the blame from Jews to the American government.

Since nobody was directly hurt by Pussy Riot, most people consider their crime to be trivial, but imagine if thousands of musical groups around the world were doing such stunts every day at churches, businesses, schools, and government agencies in an attempt to manipulate us against whichever policies or people that they didn't like.

The people who do not like Putin should provide intelligent reasoning for their complaints about him. Likewise, homosexuals, Jews, and other groups who want to change the world should offer us intelligent suggestions rather than try to manipulate us with deception. If a person cannot provide intelligent supporting evidence for his brilliant proposals, that is his problem, not yours or mine.

A person who is truly intelligent will be able to impress us with his intelligence. The Jews and other people who have to resort to murder, blackmail, deception, bribery, and other tricks are proving to us that they have nothing intelligent to contribute. We are fools to tolerate their abuse.

I don't like the way the world is, but I'm not trying to change it by deceiving people with false, anti-Hufschmid attacks. We are not going to improve the world with deception. The world will improve when people discuss issues and agree to experiment with changes.

The Pussy Riot incident is an example of a crime that doesn't directly affect our emotions. You must to be able to think about the issue in order to realize that the people who try to manipulate us with deception are much more dangerous to society than a shoplifter. Russia would be justified in sending all those people to Siberia for the rest of their lives.

Americans do not have to tolerate that type of abuse, either. We do not have to live with a person who cannot behave in a responsible manner and contribute something of value to society.

Quality control, not guns, will protect us from crime

Although I've mentioned this issue in other files, I will discuss a few new aspects of it. Specifically, I want to point out that the people who promote guns, and the people in Hollywood, are fooling people into thinking that it is easy to kill criminals with guns. This video of a recent robbery in Brazil is another example of how dangerous this attitude is. Two men decided to rob a store. They got onto one motorcycle and drove up to a retail store. They driver drove onto the sidewalk and stopped directly in front of the doors. His passenger jumped off, went inside the store, and tried to rob it while the driver waited outside on the motorcycle.

Inside the store was an off-duty policeman. He pulled out his gun and shot the robber at an extremely close range. The robber fell to the ground. The policeman then turned around and went out the door, and shot the man on the motorcycle. Meanwhile, the other man got up, went outside, and shot the policeman. However, the policeman was not killed, so he turned and shot at the robber, hitting him again. All three men ended up dead.

The people who promote guns create the impression that guns are similar to the magic wands in a Harry Potter movie. They claim that all we have to do to protect ourselves from a criminal is to point a gun at a criminal and pull the trigger. In the Hollywood movies, people often die within microseconds of being shot with even tiny bullets, but in real life, bullets kill only when they hit people in certain areas.

Furthermore, in the Hollywood movies, the criminals frequently move in a sluggish manner and stand motionless in front of their victims while making idiotic remarks to them, thereby giving their victims plenty of time to get their guns out. In real life, criminals are very frightened, and most are below-average intelligence or very neurotic. They do not stop to make amusing comments, and they are usually moving very quickly. It is not easy to predict their crazy behavior. The only people who might be able to react fast enough are people who have frequent training for such events, such as certain policemen.

Hollywood also creates the impression that stabbing somebody with a knife will cause instant death. There are also scenes in movies in which people are knocked unconscious or killed after being hit in the head with a glass bottle. Hollywood also shows women hitting large men in the head with some small object, and the men die instantly. Here is a video of a person who was shot seven times, and he was also hit so hard with a shovel that the blade is embedded in his skull, and yet he is still alive and asking for water. If he had a gun in his hand, he would be able to shoot people! If you stab a criminal with a knife, you might hit one of his bones, and that will do nothing to protect you. If you stab a fat criminal, you may not even penetrate his layer of fat.

Here is a security camera video that shows a man trying to stop a robber of a store by hitting him over the head with a beer bottle, and even though the bottle shattered, the robber simply turned around and shot the man four times, and then ran out of the store. Also, notice that even though the man was shot four times at close range, he survived.

The people who promote guns or knives as protection from criminals should be considered as savages. I am not surprised that most of them are also religious fanatics. They are people who don't think or are too stupid to think properly. They are people who follow their emotions like an animal. Guns are not magic wands. Neither are knives or glass bottles. The only way to protect ourselves from crime is to set up quality control procedures for the human race.

The Trayvon Martin dilemma

A nation that encourages its citizens to carry weapons and shoot at criminals should also promote security cameras to cover the entire nation so that all of the shooting incidents can be recorded and analyzed. The cameras should also be able to see at night. Otherwise, how are we supposed to determine why people are using their weapons? Furthermore, a lot of the deaths by guns are accidents and suicides, but without security videos, how can we be sure of the cause? For example, Michael Smeriglio shot himself while cleaning his gun, but he initially told police that somebody shot him.

Unfortunately, many of the people who promote the carrying of guns are paranoid of government surveillance. This creates the "Trayvon Martin dilemma" in which a shooting occurs and there is no way to determine what actually happened. We can't even determine if the Zimmerman shooting was staged by the Jews, or if they merely decided to take advantage of it to instigate racial fights. If there were security cameras with infrared or night vision all over Zimmerman's neighborhood, we would know exactly what happened.

Why not make the gun fanatics wear the same cameras as the police?
Police cars have cameras installed in them because people complained about some of their shootings, and some police are now testing headmounted cameras. How can we justify forcing the police to document their shootings while allowing the citizens to kill in secrecy? Many of the citizens who own guns would never qualify as a policeman because of their problems with alcohol or other drugs, or because they are too psychotic, irresponsible, or violent. Why should we allow such jerks to shoot in secrecy?

The gun fanatics claim that crime will be reduced as more citizens carry guns, but there are already a lot more citizens carrying guns today than there were centuries ago. If even more people were following their advice and carrying guns, crime would continue, but there would be more shootings in which there are no security videos or witnesses.

We can shoot criminals, but not ensure they are dead

Americans are encouraged to carry weapons in order to protect themselves from criminals, but some Americans have been arrested for murder for killing a criminal. For example, a pharmacist shot a teenage boy who tried to rob his store, and the boy collapsed to the ground, but was not dead. The pharmacist then got a second gun and shot the boy five more times to ensure that he was dead. By ensuring the boy was dead, the courts convicted him of murder and sentenced him to jail for the rest of his life.

If that pharmacist had shot the boy in the brain with a large bullet, thereby blowing his brains out, then he would not have needed to shoot five more times. In that case, the pharmacist would not have been considered guilty of murder. Why is it okay to kill somebody on the first shot, but not on the second, third, or other shots? This policy is favoring the people who are excellent shots and can kill with one bullet, and it penalizes people who need to shoot several times to ensure a death.

America's policy towards crime is senseless. We are encouraged to carry guns and shoot at criminals, but if we ensure that they are dead, then we are guilty of murder. So what are we supposed to do? If we shoot a criminal and he is only wounded, then he might attack us. This is what happened to that policeman in that video I mentioned earlier. If that policeman had shot the robber a second time in the head, he would have killed him, and then he would have been able to safely kill the criminal on the motorcycle. Incidentally, he is not the only policeman who ended up dead or seriously wounded because he did not follow through and kill the criminal.

Both America and Britain, and I suppose other nations, are promoting the policy that it is wrong to kill criminals. This is encouraging people to capture criminals alive, but this can lead to fights with wounded criminals, usually in public locations. Who benefits from this? Why is it wrong to ensure that criminals are dead?

I don't think America's philosophy towards guns and crime are the result of intellectual analyses. I think our legal system is operating primarily by emotional reactions. America is full of idiots, and a lot of them have a very strong "feel sorry for me" attitude, and so they do not want to kill criminals. America promotes capturing criminals alive, punishing them with a fine or jail, and then letting them back into society.

The people in America who refer to themselves as "conservatives" seem to be the primary group of people who encourage us to purchase guns. They tell us to protect ourselves from criminals, but they do not want us to kill the criminals. These conservatives also become hysterical over abortions and euthanasia. They claim to be too loving to support the killing of people, but they seem to be the primary group that supports the wars with Iraq and Afghanistan, and who want us to attack North Korea and Iran. I think the conservatives are reacting to events with their emotions rather than by thinking.

Julian Assange and the sanctity of an embassy

Every nation has agreed to treat the embassies of other nations as if they are on plots of land that belong to the foreign nation. The reason nations want this policy is because they use their embassies to spy on one another and conduct illegal and immoral acts. Each nation assumes that they benefit from this policy, but I think it would be better if we stopped it.

An embassy should be treated the same way we treat businesses and homes. The police cannot walk into a house or business whenever they please, but if they have a sensible reason, they are allowed to look inside for evidence of a crime or to arrest whoever they are looking for. If the people at the home or business refuse to allow the police inside, then the police are justified in using force and arresting the people who resist.

This policy should apply to embassies, also. We should not allow embassies to harbor criminals of any type. Imagine an extreme example. Imagine if the British told the burglars, rapists, murderers, and gang members in Ecuador that whenever they are about to be arrested for a crime, they can run over to the British Embassy and they will be given protection and flown out of the nation. Who would benefit from that?

Some people claim that embassies are giving protection to political criminals who would otherwise be killed, but it would be better to force the people of every nation to deal with their problems. For example, a lot of people in Syria are escaping their corrupt government by becoming refugees in Turkey or Lebanon. It would be better for Syria, Turkey, and Lebanon to block the borders and force the people in Syria to deal with their problems. The people in Syria should stop acting like stupid, frightened animals and get involved with providing their nation with a better government. When we encourage refugees, we are encouraging people to run away from their problems.

Furthermore, what kind of people are the refugees? Why do some people become refugees while other people remain in their nation and try to improve it? I don't think refugees are random sample of the population, except occasionally, such as when hurricanes destroy entire towns. I think that the type of people who are most likely to become refugees are people who run away from problems. Some of them are wealthy and may seem talented, but they don't want to deal with problems. They want somebody else to deal with the problems. This would explain why the refugees just sit in their refugee camps day after day doing nothing. They are not interested in doing anything. They want somebody else to feed them and care for them.

No nation benefits from the refugees because the majority of refugees are low-quality people. Instead of offering to help take care of themselves, they whine that they are not getting enough food or other supplies. It would be better to force them to remain in their nation and deal with their problems. We should stop feeling sorry for the "Underdogs".

To summarize this, embassies should not provide protection to criminals or refugees. The British police should be able to call the Ecuadorian embassy on the phone and tell them that they are going to arrest Julian Assange, and that they will be at the embassy at a particular day and time. If the embassy personnel resist, then the police would be justified in forcing themselves into the embassy and arresting the personnel who put up a fight.

Assange claims that he is releasing information on Wikileaks because he is a "whistleblower" who is trying to help the world, but it is up to society to determine whether a person's actions classify him as a whistleblower or as a criminal. He is trying to influence our world and our future, and we have a responsibility to investigate him and make sure that he is truly bringing improvements to our lives. We should demand that he show evidence that his actions are helpful to the world, and it should be society, not him, who makes the decision on whether he is a whistleblower, a fool, or a criminal.

Assange claims that he is frightened of arrest because he worries that the government will not give him a fair trial, but I think he is concerned about the opposite; specifically, that a fair trial will expose him as a fraud and a criminal. My guess is that Assange is just another mentally ill person who is working for the Jewish crime network, and that he is trying to hurt America. He is not a "whistleblower". Rather, he is releasing only certain information that is intended to make America look bad, shift attention away from Israel and Jews, and instigate fights between America and Arabs.

We should help people become better team members

Modern society is a team, not a group of individuals. One goal of the government should be to help everybody become a more productive team member. We need to occasionally review people to see if they are doing their jobs properly, and if not, then we should give them some additional training, and if they cannot improve, we need to assign them different tasks, or give them a different job.

This concept is especially important for people in the medical profession. Medical issues are extremely complicated, and mistakes with medical issues can result in serious harm to a patient. As a result, people in the medical industry are frequently, but inadvertently, hurting us.

Nobody can do a job without making occasional mistakes, so we should expect doctors to make mistakes rather than be shocked when they happen. We should have a database that keeps track of everybody's performance, and that would allow us to analyze the mistakes that doctors are making. A doctor who frequently makes a particular mistake could be told to stop doing that particular procedure and concentrate on the tasks that they are better able to do. As the doctors grow old, a database would help us identify which tasks they are becoming increasingly incompetent at, and that would allow us to tell those doctors to leave those tasks for the younger doctors. If we find that a particular mistake is occurring on a regular basis, and if we cannot find a way to reduce the problem, then we should be prepared for that mistake so that we can react to it more quickly.

I might seem to be promoting a rather obvious concept, but is it being applied in the world today? I don't know about other nations, but in America, when a doctor makes a mistake, our legal system encourages people to sue the doctor for enormous amounts of money. This allows lawyers and victims to profit from mistakes, but it doesn't help the doctor or society. Some people advocate punishing doctors who make mistakes, such as by putting them in jail or taking away their medical license. However, punishing the doctor doesn't help anybody, either.

This concept applies to all people, not just doctors. We can't expect perfection from mechanics, pilots, assembly-line workers, or farmers. However, we are foolish to react to problems by profiting from them or punishing the person who made the mistake. We should keep a database of everybody's performance, and we should try to help everybody become more productive team members. People who make particular mistake should get training, and if they don't improve, then we should give them different tasks or a different job. Furthermore, as we grow old, we become better at some tasks, and worse at others. We should adjust our jobs as we grow old so that we are doing what we do best. Let the younger people have certain tasks.

Most people react to problems in the same manner as an animal. Specifically, with anger, or by looking for ways to exploit the situation. They do not react by looking for ways to improve the situation. They do not think of what is best for society.

We should not allow lawsuits of any type because there is no value in profiting from mistakes or punishing people who make mistakes. Children should be taught that nobody can guarantee the safety of anything, and that everybody makes mistakes. They should be taught to react to problems by analyzing them and looking for ways to improve the situation. Children should be taught that every medical procedure and drug is "risky", and that each person has a responsibility to get involved with his particular medical problems by learning about his problems.

However, expecting people to get involved with their medical problems requires providing them with honest information about the problems, drugs, and medical procedures. Unfortunately, a free enterprise system encourages deception and exploitation, not honesty. For example, businesses that produce decaffeinated coffee, according to some people on the Internet, are actually producing reduced caffeine coffee, not decaffeinated coffee. Businesses that produce medical drugs, artificial hips, and other medical items are also deceptive about the safety of their products.

Our democracy also encourages deception, not honesty. Our government has to please the people, so it is under pressure to guarantee the safety of medical drugs, airlines, nuclear reactors, coal mining, and food. Unfortunately, no government can guarantee the safety of anything.

Our school system is not helping us with medical issues, either. Our school system does nothing to prepare children for medical problems. An example are the people who are put into an operating room and are shocked when the doctor asks them their name and what they are doing in the operating room. The doctor is verifying that he has the patient he assumes he has, and that the person is getting the procedure that the doctor is about to give.

Millions of people do not realize that doctors have learned from their mistakes to verify that they have the patient they think they have, and to verify that that the patient is expecting the operation that they are prepared to do. These ignorant people are not helping the doctors. Schools should provide children with some basic information about how to function in society so that they can help the doctors reduce mistakes, rather than irritate the doctors with such remarks as, "You don't know who I am?"

It would be very easy for schools to provide information to students about the basic operation of society, and it would be easy for the schools to update that information as society changes. It would also be easy for the schools to provide more detailed information about society, and the students could be told that there is no sense trying to learn all of that additional information, but they should be aware of its existence and what it contains so that they can use it as reference material later in their life. Unfortunately, those type of educational materials will not be developed in a free enterprise system, or in a democracy. No business can profit by producing that type of educational material, and no school has any incentive to do it, and the government has no reason, either.

In America, the government and businesses try to guarantee the safety of drugs, medical procedures, airlines, nuclear reactors, dentists, and doctors. This is creating an environment in which the citizens are treated like babies who are taken care of. I think this is a destructive attitude.

I think it would be better for the citizens to play a more active role in society. They should be team members, not babies. We should provide people with access to honest medical information, and we should tell people to get involved with their medical problems by learning about them. By requiring the citizens to be responsible for themselves rather than behave like babies, then we can remove the restrictions on prescription drugs and let each person decide for himself which drugs he wants to experiment with. We should not treat adults as babies. Some adults will not have the mental capacity to deal with these issues, but that is their problem, not yours.

Incidentally, can we replace some of the isopropyl alcohol with ethyl alcohol? Isopropyl alcohol is available to everybody of every age without any restrictions, and at a very low cost. I am not a chemist, but from what I know, it is more poisonous than ethyl alcohol. Therefore, if it were possible to replace some of the isopropyl alcohol with ethyl alcohol, wouldn't that be better for both us and the environment? Ethyl alcohol is available as "denatured" alcohol, but why should we have to add possibly dangerous chemicals to it?

We currently follow the philosophy that society should pity and protect the most incompetent, irresponsible, and neurotic citizens, and this is causing us to put lots of restrictions on ethyl alcohol, medical drugs, certain types of glues, and other chemicals. The chemists ought to consider whether raising standards for citizens would allow us to replace some of the dangerous chemicals with ethyl alcohol.

We need to eliminate nations
Ideally we would be members of one world, not of separate nations
Although I've explained some of these concepts in other files, in this series I am going over everything in more detail, so I will cover this issue again.

As I mentioned years ago here, I think the best way to prevent fights between nations is to eliminate "nations" and create large, semi-independent cities. The cities would have the freedom to develop differences in culture, but they would not be completely independent. They would be members of a world government which coordinates their economies and prevents them from developing weapons.

Each of the city governments would have total control over everything in their city. The city government officials would deal with their businesses, farms, immigration, crime, social activities, buildings, and schools. If I appear to be proposing some type of horrible dictatorship, consider each city as being a giant corporation. The executives of a corporation have total control over all of their employees, land, buildings, cafeterias, retirement plans, and Christmas parties. However, corporations are not allowed to develop military weapons and attack one another. Corporations are also required to follow compatible economic system. They cannot create their own money, for example. They are also not allowed to abuse the environment.

We could describe such a world as a group of cities within one nation, but when there is only one nation, the concept of a nation becomes irrelevant. The national government becomes a world government.

The cities would not be encouraged to think of themselves as independent nations. Rather, they would think of themselves as just one of many cities on the planet Earth, or as separate bedrooms in the human family home. Each of the cities would be able to have its own culture, just as different children in a family decorate their bedrooms differently, but all of the people in every city would think of themselves as "members of the human family", not as separate nations.

Our emotions, not our intellect, want nations

Near the beginning of this file I pointed out that we need to understand our emotions, and nations are another example of this concept. Why do we want nations? Why don't we think of ourselves as humans who share the planet Earth? The reason is because animals have a natural tendency to form groups that compete with and fear one another. Animals do not think of themselves as sharing the planet with other animals.

It would be beneficial if we understood this emotion and used our intellect to make better decisions about life. I think when we encourage nations, especially nations of extremely different sizes, we are encouraging this tribal behavior, thereby making our lives even worse.

Our emotions, at least a man's emotions, want us to be dominant over other groups of people, but that is not what is best for us. We are wasting a lot of resources and technical talent on weapons, wars, and disputes over boundaries. We need to become more cooperative. Everybody would benefit tremendously if we could find a way to stop the fighting between nations.

I think the best method to end wars and fighting between nations is to eliminate the concept of nations and divide the world up into reasonably equal, semi-independent cities. We should not allow any group of people to be dominant over any other. When people are members of a city that is similar to all other cities, they are more likely to think of themselves as "humans" who are equal to others. By comparison, when we have nations of different sizes, the people in large nations have a tendency to become arrogant jerks who think that they are better than their smaller neighbors.

Our natural tendency is to form tribes, and to think of ourselves as superior, but that is not what is best for us. We should dampen this craving, not encourage it. When we allow nations to be of different sizes, we encourage the people in the larger nations to think of themselves as superior, and we encourage the smaller nations to imagine that they are being abused, neglected, oppressed, cheated, and unappreciated.

Consider the manner in which Americans, during 1991, were discussing whether they should bomb Iraq. The Jews and Kuwaitis instigated a lot of hatred towards Iraq by fabricating stories about Iraqi soldiers throwing babies out of incubators, but even if these stories had been true, the Americans should have reacted in an intelligent manner. However, all I heard were arrogant remarks about how we should bomb those "towel heads" and "sand niggers".

Millions of Americans believe that they are superior to the "sand niggers", but most of the American people, if they were separated into their own nation, would create a very primitive society. I don't see much of a difference between the ordinary Americans and the "sand niggers". The majority of Americans boast about their nuclear weapons, for example, but how many Americans are capable of developing nuclear weapons? How many Americans could even provide themselves with an electric generator? Most Americans, if they were put into their own nation, would create a technically primitive nation. Most Americans would create what they criticize as a "Third World nation".

I didn't hear any intelligent discussions about the bombing of Iraq in 1991. I heard Americans discuss the bombing as if they were discussing whether they should sprinkle flea powder on their pet dog. They were not considering the Iraqi people to be "humans". If any nation were to treat America in the same manner, the Americans would be disgusted. So why aren't the Americans disgusted with their behavior? Because we are in a very large nation, and this is stimulating our arrogance. Likewise, the people in China think they are superior to their neighbors. We need to dampen this arrogance, not encourage it.

Preventing war is easy!

It's important to note that the majority of people do not want war. Most people are extremely passive, tolerant of abuse, and easily frightened. The majority of people in every nation are living in fear of one another, but this fear is ridiculous. As I described in Part 10, humans have such inhibitions about killing that we cannot even kill people who are begging for somebody to put them out of their misery, such as Tony Nicklinson.

There is a widespread belief that it is virtually impossible to prevent war, but only a small minority of people, mostly Jews, push us into war and try to instigate fights. Therefore, it is possible to eliminate war. It may not be "easy", and it may not be what our emotions "want", but it is possible. All we have to do is make all societies relatively equal in size, prevent them from developing military weapons, and raise standards for people in influential positions. We must pass judgment on one another in regards to who qualifies for a leadership position, and who is too psychotic, dishonest, violent, or selfish.

Most people do not want war, and the reason we have wars is because the few people who do want war are getting into influential positions in the media, schools, government, businesses, and military. All we have to do is figure out which of the people among us are causing trouble, and prevent them from getting into influential positions.

A lot of people oppose abortion, euthanasia, and the death penalty, and they claim that this proves that they are nonviolent and love all people equally, but don't let them fool you. If those people were truly appalled with death and suffering, then they would be appalled that the Jews are responsible for the 9/11 attack, the world wars, and lots of other crimes. They made an international fuss when Tony Nicklinson asked for assisted suicide, but they are silent about the crimes the Jews are committing.

Only a small percentage of the population actually wants war. We are fools to live in fear of one another. We can and should change the world to prevent wars. The people in the larger nations might be frightened of the concept of making everybody virtually equal, but if you are an American, how would you suffer if you had to become equal to other people? All we do is rearrange the boundaries of our societies. Nobody is going to suffer by making the boundaries more equal. Actually, everybody will benefit significantly by eliminating war and reducing the labor and resources that we waste on weapons.

The boundaries of our societies are irrelevant and arbitrary. Furthermore, they have been changing constantly through time. However, certain divisions are more appropriate to human emotions. When we divide the world up into reasonably equal size regions, we create a psychologically better situation because it will dampen our arrogance and help people to think of themselves as "humans".

This concept also applies to businesses and schools. The employees of a large business are likely to think of themselves as better people than the employees of a small business, and the people who graduate from college tend to think of themselves as superior to the people who didn't graduate. Within the group of college graduates, the people who graduate from certain colleges are likely to think of themselves as superior to the people who graduate from other colleges.

Our natural tendency is to create a society that we "like", but what we like is what a "talking monkey" likes. Our emotions want us to behave like arrogant jerks, but we cannot do what we want to do. We have to figure out what is best for us. It would be best if all schools were treated as equal, rather than encouraging the attitude that some schools are better than other schools. We should not even allow people to give schools "quality ratings". For example, Princeton provides a list of the best colleges, and Forbes has this list.

If we switch to electronic education, it will be especially easy to stop this arrogance with schools because everybody in the world will have access to the same educational materials. This will make it easy for people to realize that it makes no difference which school you go to, or even whether you go to a school. All that really matters is what you actually accomplish in your life.

When we create a society that encourages arrogance, we hurt society because we encourage people to waste their time on a destructive activity. To understand why I say this, imagine if we could read people's minds. We would find that many of the college graduates are taking time out throughout the day and evening to praise themselves for being smart and educated. They may spend only a few seconds during each of these praise sessions, but the time adds up. Over the course of their life, they may spend hundreds of hours praising themselves. All of that time was wasted. Furthermore, their constant stimulation of their arrogance can interfere with their relationships, and irritate other people.

The college graduates should do something useful with their time, not jerk themselves off all throughout the day and evening. They should be using their education for the benefit of society, not using their education as a dildo to titillate themselves with.

What nationality are you?

Why are some Americans referring to themselves as Irish-American, or Jewish American, or African-American, whereas people like me are just plain "American"? A few generations earlier, my ancestors were identifying themselves as Danish, Italian, Swiss, and possibly some were both German and English also. Does that make me a Danish- Italian- Swiss- German- English- American? To complicate the situation, some of the people in Denmark have ancestors from other areas of the world, so they are not "Danish". They are German-Danish, or Norwegian-Danish, or Prussian-Danish. So, some my Danish ancestors may be a combination of other nationalities. We can take this concept to ridiculous extremes by going back in time thousands of years.

Nations have constantly changing, arbitrary boundaries, so it is silly to identify people according to a nationality. It would be more sensible to identify ourselves by our race, or by our genetic qualities, but that requires that we understand genetics enough to figure out what our qualities are, and how to classify those genetic qualities.

Assuming we were capable of analyzing ourselves genetically, I might discover that some portions of my brain come from my Danish ancestors, and that my baldness comes from an Italian ancestor, and that my liver is a mixture of my German and Swiss ancestors. That information would certainly be interesting, and it could be useful for medical researchers and scientists to understand the migration of people, our evolution, and our medical problems, but it wouldn't be of any value to me in my personal life.

The point I want to make is that when we encourage nationalities, we are encouraging people to engage in idiotic and detrimental behavior. The concept is also idiotic. To describe somebody as "African-American" is as stupid as describing somebody as "European-American". Ideally, we would create a world in which there are no nationalities. Nobody benefits from nationalities.

It would make more sense to classify people according to their racial group, but all we can do now is make general assumptions about race. We can't be specific. Therefore, it would be best to encourage people to think of themselves primarily as "humans", and next as whatever race they believe they are.

The issue of nationalities becomes even more idiotic when you consider that every nation has a history, but the people in that nation don't necessarily share that history. For example, many Americans boast about America's founding fathers, and they are proud of the American national anthem, The Star-Spangled Banner, which was originally a poem written in 1814. However, most Americans have little or nothing in common with those original residents of America.

Most of the original residents were misfits from England, but how many of us are related to those misfits? Most Americans are not even related to the English people. I am not directly related to any of those original Americans, so they are not my forefathers, and chances are very good that they are not your forefathers, either. In Plymouth, Massachusetts there is the National Monument to the Forefathers; a large statue to commemorate the Mayflower Pilgrims, but who among us can honestly describe the pilgrims as our "forefathers"?

Humans and animals have a natural tendency to follow their established routines, and so people who are not very adventurous will justify following old culture by claiming that we are "honoring" our ancestors. However, this is just an excuse to behave like a stupid animal, or to behave like a train on a track. Nobody gains anything from the nonsensical concept of "honoring" our ancestors. We have no obligation to promote any of their ideas, technology, or recreational activities. We don't even have an obligation to eat the same foods or wear the same clothing.

Before I continue, consider a more extreme example. Imagine an Eskimo family in Alaska moving to Australia, and after they get their citizenship, they refer to themselves as "Australians", and they proudly boast of their Australian "forefathers". What does an Eskimo have in common with the original people who were dumped in Australia by the English? Who benefits when an Eskimo "honors" those original residents?

Perhaps an even more extreme example would make this point more clear. Imagine that there is intelligent life in other solar systems, and that some of those aliens apply for immigration to America. After they become American citizens, they visit the National Monument To The Forefathers and boast about their Pilgrim forefathers. You would likely consider such behavior to be silly, but is it any sillier than an American today referring to the Pilgrims, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, or any of the other early Americans as "forefathers" if they are not closely related to any of those people?

Organizations have "founders", not "fathers"

Businesses are created by one or more individuals, and they are described as the "founders" of the business. The employees of a business do not refer to those founders as their "forefathers" or as "founding fathers". A business, nation, and basketball team are organizations. It makes no sense to refer to the founders of an organization as our fathers unless we are their direct descendants.

It may seem as if I'm arguing over the definition of words, but I am pointing out that our attitudes are wrong. When we think of the pilgrims, George Washington, and other people as our "forefathers", it causes our emotions to feel as if we have a close, family bond to those people. Although I encourage you to think of a society as a big family, if you don't understand these concepts, you can be manipulated by the people who resist changes. If you can be convinced to consider George Washington as your "forefather", then you will be more likely to regard criticism of America as a personal attack on you and your family members.

Everybody today can freely criticize government officials, and comedians do it on a regular basis, but if we criticize George Washington and the other "founding fathers", we are considered unpatriotic. This is an idiotic attitude.

We should also discourage the use of the pronoun "she" when referring to nations. That pronoun can cause men to develop an emotional attachment to a nation. We don't refer to a football team, orchestra, military unit, or a business as a "she". All organizations should be referred to as "it", even if they consist of women.

The best way to look at the founders of a nation are the same way you look at the founders of a business; specifically, as "people" or "founders", not as "forefathers", "foremothers", "founding fathers", or "founding mothers". We don't owe blind obedience to the founders of an organization, and we don't have to defend them from criticism. We should not mindlessly follow them like peasants following a King. Instead, we should look critically at their achievements and try to improve them. Our goal should be to make life better for us, not make excuses to do nothing.

We must think better than our ancestors

The animal mind has the characteristic of filling in missing details in order to make decisions. This is a necessary feature for animals because they must always "know" what to do. They must make decisions, and quickly. An animal cannot stop what it is doing to conduct research, or to discuss the issue with another animal. Animals cannot stand motionless in a state of confusion, either. An animal has no option except to process whatever information it has in its memory, and rapidly make a decision with it. If information is missing, it must fill in the details as it assumes it should be. You can see - literally see - this process of filling in the missing details by noticing how your mind will fill in the blind spot in your vision. Our brain will not tolerate a black void in our vision; it fills in the missing information as it assumes it should be.

Humans today must be aware of this characteristic and control it. If we don't know something, we must force ourselves to say, "I do not know". We cannot fill in the details as we want them to be. Humans today can no longer think in the manner that is natural to us. Our natural method of thinking is to take whatever information is available, fill in the missing details, and make a rapid decision. In this modern world, schools must teach children how to do a better job of thinking, and children need to practice it. We have to become accustomed to passing judgment on the information in our mind in regards to its accuracy. Some of our information has been thoroughly verified, but some is of questionable accuracy, and some is wild speculation. We must also learn to force ourselves to do research when we are missing information rather than fill in the details as we please.

We know very little about the pilgrims of the 1600's, and our natural tendency is to fill in all of the missing information as our mind assumes it should be. However, if you regard the pilgrims as your "forefathers", you are likely to fill in that missing information in a much more favorable manner because you will regard those pilgrims as your family members. You are likely to assume the pilgrims are very similar to you and your family members.

For example, one of the women on the Mayflower was described as a "prostitute", and if we think of her as our forefather, or "foremother", we are likely to assume that she is similar to our mother, sister, or the prostitutes that we find in Las Vegas or Thailand. However, prostitutes in the 1600s were not the same as prostitutes today, and they were not likely to be similar to your mother or sister. There was no medical technology or birth control in the 1600s, and as a result, there were fewer women willing to be prostitutes. To rephrase that, the women who became prostitutes centuries ago were a noticeably lower quality group of women compared to the prostitutes of today. A woman who became a prostitute prior to the 20th century was almost guaranteed to develop venereal diseases and have lots of children by different fathers.

When people fill in the missing details about the Pilgrims, the Big Bang, dinosaurs, or Jesus, they can be visualized as using crayons to add the details in a coloring book. We have to learn to control our natural tendency to fill in the details as we want them to be.

What do you have in common with the pilgrims who left England during the 1600s and settled in America? Most Americans of today are descendants of people who arrived in America after the Civil War. If the original immigrants to America were a random sample of the European population, and if the immigrants who arrived after the Civil War were also a random sample of the European population, then all of us could claim that we have something in common with one another and with those early Americans.

However, none of the immigrants to America were a random sample of any population, especially not those who arrived prior to about 1850. Most of those early immigrants were religious fanatics, idiots, criminals, freaks, weirdos, and losers. Mixed among them were a few adventurous people. This is why, up until the Civil War, America was a technically and socially primitive nation compared to Europe. America was a crude version of Europe, not an improved version, and not even an identical version. Those immigrants were English, but they couldn't even speak English properly.

Americans like to imagine that the Pilgrims and other early Americans were the best people that Europe had to offer, but if we could travel back in time and meet those early Americans, many of us would be disgusted with those people. The Pilgrims were so incompetent that a lot of them died during the winter. By comparison, explores such as Magellan were capable of exploring uncharted areas, and finding food wherever they went.

Don't make excuses for the pilgrims! Control your emotions and use your intellect to think about the issue seriously. Don't make the mistake of filling in the details of history with what you want to believe. The evidence is overwhelming that the pilgrims and other early immigrants were the losers of England. The immigrants up until about the mid 1800s were not like you or me. They were the poor people, criminals, religious fanatics, and weirdos of England.

Remember, judge people by their behavior, not by what they claim to be. A lot of the pilgrims starved to death during the winter, but it was not because of a shortage of food. Food was everywhere around them. The rivers and oceans in that era were full of fish, and the forests were full of edible vegetables, mushrooms, and wild animals. The entire East Coast of America was full of food, which is why the Native Americans could so easily survive with very crude technology.

Most of my life I believed what I heard from other Americans, which is that "everybody" wants to live in America. One day I was browsing through a history book that had a chart that showed immigration to America at some time in the 1800s, and it showed a very large arrow from Europe into America and many smaller arrows from other areas into America, but what was unusual about this chart is that it also had a large arrow from America back to Europe. This book pointed out that about one third of the people who emigrated to America decided to go back to Europe after they became disappointed with America.

You are not a bud from the original immigrants to America.
We have no obligation to be proud of the original immigrants to America, and we have no obligation to maintain their government, their philosophies towards life, their school system, their legal system, their sports, or anything else. They created a nation that is so incapable of taking care of itself that it was taken over by a network of criminal Jews without any noticeable struggle. We should not feel obligated to maintain the culture of those losers from England. We should instead forget the pilgrims and discuss what we want our future to be.

Most of us are not even directly related to those original immigrants, and even if you have some direct connection to them, you are not a yeast bud that pinched off of one of those original immigrants. You are a genetically different person. Find the strength to be an independent human. Cut your emotional bonds to your distant ancestors.

Why am I so critical of our ancestors?

Long ago somebody notice that horses have a natural resistance to wearing saddles, but they will become accustomed to saddles if they are forced to wear them for a certain number of days. Humans also need to be pressured into making changes in their life. In this section I'm spending a lot of time criticizing our ancestors to get you accustomed to the idea of thinking of our future and cutting the emotional bonds to your relatives and ancestors. I am hoping to convince you to stop mimicking and being defensive of your ancestors. You are wasting your life when you try to maintain their old languages, their old customs, and their old philosophy.

If you could travel back in time far enough, you might find that you have some rats as ancestors. Would you live your life according to how those rats spent their lives? If somebody referred to your rat ancestors as "stupid rodents", would you become defensive and insist that they were the greatest rats that ever existed? If you do not feel a need to defend your rat-like ancestors of millions of years ago, why do you feel a need to defend your ancestors from just a few decades ago?

You should not even feel a need to defend your relatives who are alive today. Live your life, not theirs. We have to control our emotions and use our intellect to let go of the past, ignore people who are closely related to us, and think of our future. You are not any of your ancestors. You are different from all of them. Don't imitate them; be better than them.

The Australia of 2012 is not the same nation that existed in 1780. Australia has a completely different group of people. Many of them are closely related to the original criminals who were dumped by England, but they are not exact copies of their ancestors. Some of them are worse than their ancestors, but some of them are better. Also, Australia has attracted some higher-quality people since 1780. The Australians should not feel sorry for themselves because of their past, and they should not pretend that their ancestors were the greatest people that England ever created. Rather, they should be planning for their future.

Likewise, the Americans who are alive today are not the same people as in 1780. If we could go back in time to Boston in 1780, we would find people who are much more crude, stupid, irresponsible, and psychotic. The people in Boston today should not try to convince us that their relatives were Europe's finest people, and they should not feel sorry for themselves, either. Rather, they should learn from the past and try to create a better future.

Many African-Americans are feeling sorry for themselves because some of their ancestors were sold as slaves. Some Native Americans are feeling sorry for themselves because their ancestors suffered in fights with the immigrants from Europe. I wouldn't be surprised if there are some people in France who are feeling sorry for themselves because their distant ancestors suffered as a result of the Roman troops. Some people feel sorry for themselves because their parents died at a young age, or because their mother didn't breast-feed them, or because they grew up in a poor neighborhood. People who feel sorry for themselves over events in the past - especially the distant past - are wasting their life on an idiotic activity, and they are irritating the rest of us. They are like dirt in a transmission.

We are told that we should be proud of George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, but we know almost nothing about those people, and most of us are not related to them. Even if you are related to some of the original residents of America, you have no idea what those people were really like, and you are a fool to follow their philosophy anyway. You are a different person, and you live in a much different world.

Are you impressed by the people who are in the American government today? How about the people who are in the British government? Why should we assume that the people who became government officials in 1780 were more honest, intelligent, or responsible than the government officials today? I don't think government officials are a random sample of the population. Governments during the past few centuries seem to have attracted a lot of undesirable people.

After the Articles of Confederation failed, the leaders of America agreed to get together to create the Constitution. Our history books make it appear as if some intelligent, responsible, well behaved men got together to create the Constitution, but where is the evidence for that theory?

Years before the Internet, I was scanning through a book on American history and I found a letter written by one of the wives of America's leaders during the time they were creating the Constitution, and she made some remark about how the public would lose hope for America if they could see how America's leaders were behaving. I can't remember who she was or the name of the book, but she was just one of many people who provide evidence that America's leaders in the 1780s were similar to those we find in Congress today. Actually, I think some of the government officials of previous centuries were even more disgusting than what we have today.

Do you know what led up to prohibition?

PBS produced this 3-part documentary about prohibition. PBS is full of Jewish propaganda, but Part 1 has some interesting information, from the point of view of understanding America. It gives the history of events that led up to the prohibition of 1917. I have the impression that most Americans believe that prohibition developed because some government officials assumed it would be a good idea to prohibit alcohol, but prohibition developed very slowly over about a century.

Furthermore, and more important, prohibition was a reaction to America's very serious problem with alcohol. Prohibition required changing the Constitution, and that required significant support from both government officials and the public. Alcoholism was such a persistent and serious problem in America that by 1917 there was enough support to alter the Constitution and prohibit alcohol. Of course, as with the attempt to stop marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and other drugs, prohibition was a failure. Our concept of controlling human behavior with laws and punishments has a 100% failure rate, but we continue to believe that we will somehow make it successful. In case you don't want to watch that documentary, here is a quick summary:

Starting from about 1820, women in different areas of the nation had became so disgusted with their drunken husbands that they would make feeble attempts to stop alcoholism. Some of them would get together in groups and pray outside of bars, and others would try to convince bar owners to stop selling alcohol. Some women would form organizations to give moral support to men willing to quit drinking, and some women created deceptive propaganda about alcohol to frighten children into avoiding it.

Starting from about 1850, immigrants from nations other than England started to increase. The immigrants from Germany brought their custom of drinking beer, and some of them started breweries. Although it's more difficult to get drunk on beer, it added to the problem of alcoholism.

A few states and cities passed legislation to limit or prohibit alcohol, but overall the women failed to have a significant effect on alcoholism.

By about 1900, some religious fanatics got involved in the attempt to stop alcohol, and they were much more successful than the women. By 1917 there was enough support from the women, religious fanatics, and other people to prohibit alcohol.

The American history books make it appear as if the pilgrims and all of the early immigrants to America were England's most intelligent, responsible, educated, and honest people. The Americans who can trace their ancestry to the immigrants of the 1600s and 1700s will boast about it, but the events leading up to prohibition are more evidence that the vast majority of the early immigrants were mentally ill and/or stupid, and a large percentage, possibly the overwhelming majority, had problems controlling their consumption of alcohol. The women and children did not have much of a problem with alcohol, but in those days only adult men had easy access to alcohol.

I don't bring up this issue to make you feel bad about America. Rather, we need to understand history and learn from it. We should not hide from the unpleasant aspects of history, or try to glorify them. Understanding American history can help you understand why America is the way it is today.

One lesson to learn from the events leading up to prohibition is that the attempts by women throughout the 1800s to stop alcoholism is an example of what I've mentioned in other files; namely, when women or children rebel, it is a sign that the men are not behaving properly. Women and children are submissive, and so their natural tendency is to follow men. However, if the men cannot provide proper leadership, it will cause the women and children to become miserable, which in turn can cause rebellion, feminism, anger, and disgust. This same concept applies to businesses, sports teams, and other organizations. If the leaders of an organization are not providing proper leadership, they will cause their members to become apathetic, rebellious, angry, or disgusted. Rebellion in an organization is usually a reaction to terrible leadership.

Another lesson to learn from prohibition is that those of us who want to do something to improve America are not the same as the original immigrants from England. If we could go back in time to 1790 and live among those early Americans, we would be disgusted with the majority of them. We would not regard them as our friends or our equals. We would regard them as losers, drunks, misfits, freaks, idiots, and weirdos. We would be in agreement with the women of that era who were complaining about their irresponsible, selfish, alcoholic husbands.

Who is most intolerant of different opinions?

All animals and humans associate with people who are similar to themselves. We all prefer that everybody be the same as us. Our natural tendency is to be extremely arrogant, and to assume that people who disagree with us are stupid or ignorant. Nobody wants differences of opinion, but many of us tolerate differences because we realize that they can be very useful, and we also realize that it is unrealistic to expect anything else.

We differ in our tolerance of differences of opinion. The people who tormented Galileo, for example, were incapable of tolerating alternative views of the solar system. Some Americans are so intolerant of people who eat horses or cats that they want to make it illegal for people to eat those foods. Some Mormons are so intolerant of alcohol, tea, and coffee that they don't want anybody in their area consuming those drinks. I suppose if somebody points out to the Mormons that cocoa has caffeine, they will prohibit the consumption of chocolate and cocoa. Do the Mormons realize that nutmeg contains an even more dangerous drug than caffeine? The people who tormented Galileo did not want to discuss the issue of solar systems, or tolerate alternative opinions about it, and likewise, the Mormons are not interested in discussing any of their opinions or tolerating alternative opinions. Our natural tendency is to be arrogant jerks who assume we have all the answers, and to demand that other people obey us without question.

If we were to discuss the creation of a new nation, no matter what decisions we make, there are going to be people who complain that they are being oppressed, and that we should be more tolerant of differences of opinion. All throughout history we can find people whining about oppression, demanding freedom, and fighting for liberation. From my casual observations, most of the people who whine about oppression are the least tolerant of all people. They imagine themselves as being a member of a superior tribe, and they regard the rest of us as evil entities who are hurting them.

The religious fanatics, for example, are constantly fighting for freedom of religion, but who is oppressing them? It's not the atheists. It is other religious fanatics. It is the religious fanatics who are intolerant, not the atheists. The religious fanatics torment people like Galileo and Darwin, and some religious people will go door-to-door through our neighborhoods to push their religion on us, and some religious people want to put references to their particular god on coins and national anthems. They also push creationism on the schools.

The atheists provide religious people with the freedom to teach creationism in their churches, schools, youth programs, and summer camps, and the atheists do not demand that the religious people teach evolution along with creationism. However, even though religious fanatics have been given the freedom to teach creationism, they are not satisfied. They want public schools to also teach creationism, and they want prayer in public schools. However, they do not want public schools to give equal opportunity to all religions, such as Buddhism, the Mormon religion, or Islam. If public schools have to give equal opportunity to religious theories, then why shouldn't the religious organizations give equal opportunity to atheist theories?

One of the best qualities of the U.S. Constitution is that it does a fairly good job of keeping religious fanatics out of the government and schools. If those religious fanatics had as much control over America as they do in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, then the public schools would be teaching creationism; the evil religions would be illegal; and people such as Galileo would be suppressed.

If we have discussions about creating a new society, don't let the religious fanatics or anybody else intimidate you into thinking that you are "intolerant", and that you are "oppressing" people of other opinions. Don't be intimidated by the people who accuse you of being selfish or dictatorial. Don't be manipulated by their claims that we should love one another and tolerate one another. The people who whine about oppression, freedom, and liberation are often the people who are the most oppressive of all.

I suppose some people will respond that I am actually less tolerant than the worst religious fanatic because I propose evicting people from society, passing judgment on artwork, and killing defective children. However, there are significant differences between me and other people. For example, I don't care if a person wants to be religious. I don't go door-to-door through the neighborhoods to force my particular views of life on other people. I don't force people to accept my views on public items, either. For example, I don't demand that the money contain some phrase to express my opinion, such as, "We don't trust in God" Or, "We follow science, not religion". I also do not demand that any particular foods be illegal, and I don't pressure other people into following my diet. I have no desire to eat sea urchins, caterpillars, or crickets, but I have no desire to stop anybody else from doing so. I don't even ridicule people who eat strange foods.

In regards to evicting criminals and killing retarded children, I simply have a different theory for dealing with troublesome and unwanted people. Most people believe that they can correct the troublesome people with punishments, and they believe that the best way to deal with unwanted children is to put them in orphanages. Those unwanted people are going to suffer regardless of who gets control of the world. There is no pleasant solution to them.

Furthermore, there is another very important concept to keep in mind in regards to tolerance and freedom. Specifically, there will be people who can prove conclusively that they are much more tolerant than you and I of different opinions and lifestyles, but their greater tolerance doesn't prove that they are better than us.

For example, some members of the Nambla organization can easily prove to us that they are much more tolerant of Jerry Sandusky and other pedophiles. However, we cannot assume that somebody who is more tolerant of some opinion or behavior is a better person than those of us who are less tolerant of it. There are some issues that have no right or wrong. We simply have to make decisions about what we want our lives to be. Do we want to live in a society in which we are tolerant of pedophiles, bank robbers, or any other criminals? If not, then we will be oppressing the freedom of the people who commit those crimes.

No matter how we design society, there will be some people who do not like it, and from their point of view, they are being oppressed, or denied their freedom, or suffering from abuse. There is no way to design a society in which everybody gets everything he wants all the time. Don't be intimidated by the people who whine that they are being oppressed or denied their freedom. Every society will oppress certain activities; every society will deny certain freedoms. Instead of demanding freedom, we should discuss such issues as: Which activities are we going to suppress? Which should we be tolerant of? Should we suppress or tolerate pedophilia? Should we suppress or tolerate coffee?

You have a very short life, and some of it is gone already. Don't waste what is remaining of your life feeling guilty for being oppressive, or arguing with people who whine about freedom. Instead, think about what type of society you want to spend the rest of your life in.

Plan for your future; don't cling to your past

As I mentioned in another file, during junior high school I wondered why America never appears in school textbooks, except in discussions of social problems. What were the American people doing while Mozart was creating music? What were the pilgrims doing while Leeuwenhoek was making microscopes? What were the Americans doing while James Watt was developing a steam engine?

America and Australia are voids in human history in regards to art, music, science, clothing styles, and food, at least until the Civil War. Up until then America and Australia were nations of misfits, idiots, and retards. Instead of impressing the world with their intelligence and creativity, they were creating variations of religions, spitting in the streets, getting drunk, fighting with each other, and acting stupid.

We should learn from our history, not cling to it. We should look at what our ancestors did, and try to become better than them. Instead of trying to maintain the past, we should be wondering what we should do with the remainder of our life. Instead of trying to please our ancestors by following their culture, we should be trying to please our descendants by blazing a new path for them to follow.

Nations encourage war

Encouraging nationalities and patriotism is causing people to become attached to arbitrary land boundaries, often to the point that they fight over worthless land areas.

Animals are territorial, and humans also have a strong craving to claim a territory and protect its borders. We feel an emotional bond with whoever is living in the territory that we consider our own, and we assume that people outside of our territory are potential enemies. However, many of the people within our own nation are destructive, and many of the people in other nations are beneficial. It is idiotic to judge people according to their nationality. It makes more sense to judge them according to their effect on the world.

The two world wars are a good example of this. Millions of people put a tremendous amount of resources and effort into killing people of other nations who were of no threat to them. Meanwhile, every nation ignored their own citizens who were committing crimes, including government officials, crime networks, and even teenage gangs. If those nations had put their effort into destroying their own crime networks and corrupt government officials, they would have dramatically improved the entire world for everybody.

Even today we find this problem. While all nations are living in fear of one another and building militaries to protect ourselves from one another, all of us are allowing organized crime gangs and corrupt politicians to run rampant inside of our nations. We have to stop thinking of ourselves as "nations" and start thinking of ourselves as "people". Our enemy is not people of a particular nation. It is people of a particular behavior.

Our militaries attack the wrong people

When we consider ourselves as being a certain nationality, each military will defend their particular nationality and assume other nationalities are potential enemies. However, people like me and you are not starting wars. All of the wars are being started by a small number of freaks who dominate every nation's government. The militaries should not be concerned about the militaries of other nations. Rather, they should be concerned about the violent, selfish, and psychotic leaders that dominate the world. Those leaders are a threat to every person in every nation.

If every nation's military would cleanse their nation of destructive people, then no nation would have to fear any other nation. Every military should judge people according to their behavior, not their nationality. Animals do not have the intellectual ability to judge other animals according to their behavior, but if we can learn to do so, then we will stop fighting with one another like wild dogs. When we judge people by their behavior, then a military and a police force becomes like an immune system that protects the human race from its destructive members.

National songs should be for fun, not "pride"

Every nation associates itself with songs, birds, and flags. The states within America also have their own flags, birds, and mottos. Some schools have also associated themselves with a flag, song, animal, or motto. This type of behavior stimulates what we refer to as "pride". We consider it sensible to stimulate pride, but I think this is a detrimental emotion for this modern world. This emotion encourages arrogance, and it encourages us to consider other people as potential enemies and inferior creatures. This is not an emotion that we should be stimulating. People today should think of themselves as team members on the planet Earth, not as a packs of wild dogs who are fighting for their survival.

There is nothing wrong with organizations, cities, businesses, or nations selecting a flag or song for themselves, but my suggestion is that people select songs that are entertaining or informative rather than songs that encourage arrogance and hatred.

If we create a world of semi-independent cities, then we should consider encouraging all of the cities to occasionally change their song, flag, and other official symbols, similar to how the Chinese consider each year to be associated with one of 12 animals. By treating official songs, flags, and recreational activities as entertainment, we encourage people to enjoy life rather than encourage tribalism.

The attitude today is that we should practice the same holidays, city festivals, recreational events, sporting events, and other social affairs that our ancestors have been practicing for centuries. Why not once experiment with changes in city festivals, recreational activities, and sporting events? for example, I think our New Year's celebration, at least in America, needs to be changed. In America, people celebrate the New Year's holiday by getting drunk. Why not experiment with some different New Year's activities?

Since nobody in the world today is experimenting with new social activities, you might wonder how we would create a new type of New Year's activity. The answer is simple. We do what parents do when they create activities for their children. We simply think about what we could do for the New Year's holiday that would be more productive and entertaining then getting drunk; we discuss the ideas among ourselves; and we simply pick one of the ideas to experiment with. Then we watch how people react to it, and we experiment with changes to make it better, or to simply give us some variety the next year. We cannot be afraid to try these type of experiments. We will not hurt ourselves! If we don't like the new activity, we try something different, or go back to the old one. We have nothing to lose but a lot to gain.

Why not also experiment with changes to a city's flag? If we design a city with certain sections for pedestrian traffic and socializing, and if we design those sections for displaying flags and other decorations, then by changing the flags every year, those particular sections would be redecorated every year. The attitude today is that we should keep the same flag forever, but for all we know, changing the flag once in a while would make our city less boring.

Or the city could have a festival at the beginning of every season to pick a new flag for that season. In that case, we would redecorate those sections of the city four times a year. If the flags have to last for only three months, they don't need to be very durable, which makes them easier to produce and recycle. They can also be in shapes other than rectangles.

The point of this discussion about flags and songs is that animals think only of food, reproduction, and fighting over territory, but we can do better than that. Instead of mindlessly following our ancestors, and instead of encouraging pride or arrogance, we should experiment to make our lives more enjoyable and less boring. We should put some effort into behaving more like a human and less like a dog.

Do you like "The Star-Spangled Banner"?

I think the national anthem for America is more evidence that America was created by losers. Our national anthem was originally a poem written as America was losing a battle with England in the War of 1812. The British were beating the Americans and burning their buildings. One of the Americans, Francis Key, noticed that among the burning buildings was an American flag. It was damaged, but it was still flapping in the wind. He wrote a poem about that flag.

Why would Americans consider that poem to be worthy of a national anthem? I would describe that poem as a sad, desperate attempt by a man to make himself feel better after losing a battle that he never should have started. This behavior is very common among people who fail at something but who don't have the ability to learn from their mistakes. Instead of facing reality, they look for some way to cheer themselves up.

In this particular battle, Francis Key noticed that a flag was still fluttering in the wind. Although the flag had been damaged, he convinced himself that since it had survived the battle, this was an indication that the American people would survive, also.

I think it is a sad song about a sad event in American history. It is especially sad when you consider that the British were at a severe disadvantage in that battle. They had to send troops across the Atlantic ocean in wooden boats that were powered by the wind. How could the Americans not protect themselves from such a small, primitive, military force? If the war had been fought in England, the Americans would have had to send wooden sailing ships to England. Would the English have had trouble defending themselves?

The reason the Americans had so much trouble defending themselves against the British is because the American people in 1812 were a technically backward, stupid, incompetent group of misfits, alcoholics, religious fanatics, and losers. America did not become technically equal to Europe until the late 1800s. By then all of the original misfits that had created America had died, and since children are not identical copies of their parents, some of their children and grandchildren were higher-quality people. Also, America began to attract some higher-quality immigrants.

If the Americans were losers, how did they defeat the British in 1776? Their success seems to be primarily because the King of England at that time was a lunatic, and because Britain didn't put much effort into fighting the colonists. Many of the British seemed to regard the independence of the colonists as inevitable.

Francis Key reacted to losing the battle by writing a song about the flag. Not surprisingly, he was not a successful military leader, or successful in anything intellectual. A successful military leader reacts to losing a battle by analyzing what he did wrong, and trying to figure out how he can do better the next time. Actually, a successful military leader will analyze the battles that he wins in order to improve his performance and reduce casualties even further.

This concept applies to everybody, not just military leaders. One of the reasons some of us are more successful than others is because some of us are more likely to learn from our mistakes. Some of us are more likely to react to failures by analyzing our problem and looking critically at ourselves. From my casual observations of people, many of the people who frequently fail in their tasks are people who tend to react to failures by making excuses, crying about discrimination, whining about unfairness, getting drunk, or having temper tantrums. Some men also waste a lot of their time stimulating their ego by reminding themselves of how smart they are, or how talented they are.

It might help you to understand my critical remarks about the Star-Spangled Banner if you imagine the events leading up to that song as happening to two businesses rather than two nations. Imagine that the American military asks for a new type of airplane engine. The General Electric company agrees to enter the competition, and so does a group of British schoolchildren. The children are at quite a disadvantage, but they eventually build an engine and send it to the Pentagon for the competition. The US military now has two prototype engines to test and compare to one another. They start both engines up, but the engine built by General Electric shatters into tiny pieces, leaving only the logo in one piece. The engine developed by the British schoolchildren runs extremely well. Imagine the General Electric engineers reacting to the failure by writing a poem about how their logo survived the destruction of the engine. And imagine that the management and employees of General Electric decide to make that poem their official company song.

Since Americans grew up listening to the Star-Spangled Banner, we consider it to be a "normal" national anthem rather than a sad song. I think that if society was under the control of better quality men, they would be more likely to pick songs that are more inspiring. The Marines Hymn, for example, is not an attempt to cheer themselves up over their failures. The Marines have made mistakes and suffered a lot, but they don't sing about or focus on their failures. Instead, they look forward to more achievements. The same is true of the song that became official for the Army and the Air Force.

Another example is the relatively recent song, Ballad of the Green Beret. That song is about death, but it treats it in a positive manner, and I find it much more emotionally stimulating than the Star-Spangled Banner.

I think it would be useful and interesting to have a database of the type of music that we like. Part of what we like and dislike is influenced by what we grew up with, but we might find some patterns in the type of songs people prefer. For example, who enjoys the "feel sorry for me" type of song, such as Another Somebody Done Somebody Wrong Song? Is it a certain type of personality, or a certain race, or people who have had certain unhappy situations in their life?

One of the strange aspects of songs is that the tunes that stick in my mind are usually the songs I don't like. The worst of all is "The Lion Sleeps Tonight". I assumed that I disliked both the music and the lyrics, but years ago I watched a parody of that song on YouTube (I cannot find it now) that was made by some Jews who sang about going to a Jewish school, and it was a funny song, so perhaps the reason I don't like the original song is because of the lyrics.

Take a look at the lyrics to the anthem of the Bolshevik party of 1939. That song encourages arrogance, hatred, and the worship of Stalin, Lenin, Marx, and Engels. What kind of people would be attracted to that song? Apparently not many of the Russians, which is why the lyrics were changed in 1944. However, the improved version is crude, also. To understand what I mean, imagine changing the lyrics of the improved version to fit America, such as by replacing "Soviet Union" with "America", and replacing "Lenin" with "George Washington". Would you want that song as your national anthem? Who among us would?

I haven't studied the songs of different nations, but the communist nations have songs that I would describe as crude and animal-like. Those type of songs encourage people to worship their top leaders, and they stimulate arrogance and hatred by encouraging people to think of themselves as the only decent humans in a world of dangerous, violent savages. I don't think it is a coincidence that communist nations prefer songs like this; these songs match the behavior of the communist leaders.

Nations are of unfair sizes

Another reason I think we should eliminate the concept of nations is because some are large and some are small, and this allows the larger nations to dominate the smaller nations, even though there is no sensible justification for this. For example, China is much larger than Taiwan, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Korea, and Tibet, and this allows the Chinese people to exert tremendous influence over their neighbors. Why should the Chinese people have this special authority? They didn't earn this position. The people in Taiwan are behaving much better than the people in China, so the Taiwanese should have more influence over the world than China.

Israel is a small nation, but there are Jews all around the world helping it, and that makes it a much larger nation. They are exerting a lot of influence over the world, but they never earned that position. They are the most destructive nation that has ever existed.

China, Russia, and America have a lot of influence over the world because of our large size, and the Jews have a lot of influence because of their manipulation, deception, and murders. It would make more sense for us to get rid of the concept of nations and create smaller, semi-independent cities that are similar in size. Each of the cities would be equal to each other in size and economic strength, and the world government would prevent them from producing militaries or abusing one another.

Nations have unfair resources

Some nations have phenomenal natural resources, and other nations have almost nothing. If we get rid of the concept of nations and think of ourselves as members of the human race, then it becomes obvious that the best solution is to consider the Earth as belonging to the entire human race, rather than to a particular group of people. If we create a world of semi-independent cities, then we could say that none of the cities own any of the land that they are on. We could say that the land belongs to the entire human race. No city would own mineral deposits, oil, air, oceans, or outer space.

The world government would be in control of the Earth resources, and the people everywhere would benefit from them. This is the same philosophy that a family follows. For example, when a family builds a well in the backyard for water, everybody in the family has access to the water. They don't let just one person have control of it.

The people in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia would probably complain about having their oil considered as a world resource, but why should we care? They are behaving like parasites. To understand this concept, imagine a family in the same situation. Imagine that a child discovers that there is oil directly under his bedroom, and so he calls Exxon and lets them drill an oil well, and then becomes incredibly wealthy from royalties. He quits school, refuses to learn a skill, and spends the rest of his life being pampered by servants. A lot of people would wish that they could be that child, but would you be proud of that child? Would that child have a happier life than the other children?

The same concept applies to the people in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. How do they benefit by being parasites? How would they suffer if they had to work for a living like everybody else? Our tendency is to feel sorry for wealthy people who cry about having to work for a living, but why should we feel sorry for them? We are not torturing wealthy people when we take away their money and make them contribute to society like everybody else! Don't be intimidated by wealthy people!

Furthermore, whether the wealthy people have earned their enormous amounts of money depends upon how you want to look at life. I do not think any of the billionaires have earned their money. I would say that they are simply exploiting the characteristic of the free enterprise system that allows a person to profit from the work of thousands of others. A wealthy businessman is part of a team, but he is permitted to take as much money as he wants from that team. He is not earning the money. He is behaving like the medieval Kings and Queens who demanded money or resources from the peasants. There is no reason that a team has to allow one of their members to become so incredibly wealthy. This is simply a characteristic of the free enterprise system.

We need two different types of governments

In the society I suggested years ago here, a nation, or the entire world if everybody wanted to do it, would consist of semi-independent cities that are physically separated from one another. Each city would have between a few hundred thousand to a few million people. Each city would have a large land area so that they could have their own farms, recreational areas, and buffer zones.

This type of society has two types of government; 1) the city government, and 2) the world government. The city government would be responsible for managing the city and its culture. The city government would control the schools, utilities, farms, social activities, and all of their land. The city government would also be responsible for the design, maintenance, and construction of buildings, transportation lines, and whatever else the city needs.

The world government would deal with issues that affect more than one city, such as scientific research, airlines, earthquakes, the economy, and the monetary system. It would also ensure that the cities were economically coordinated and cooperating with each other.

The city governments would deal with businesses that are specific to their city, such as farms, restaurants, and bicycle repair shops, but the world government would deal with businesses that affect lots of cities, such as scientific research and most factories.

If the entire world wanted to use this system, we would need only one world government for the entire planet. As I pointed out years ago, this would have a tremendous advantage because there would be no nations. Instead of America, India, and China, we would have lots of semi-independent cities in those land areas. None of the cities would be allowed to develop a military force, and none of them would be large enough to be a military threat to the world anyway.

Concepts for a new economy
We should be more concerned about our working conditions
If we were to design our homes to be purely functional, then our homes would be similar to the homes that we provide for chickens, pigs, and other farm animals. All we need is a simple bathroom, such as what we provide for jails, and a place to sleep. We don't need decorations, colors, or glass windows.

If we were to design jobs for ourselves the way we design jobs for animals, then we would work for a few hours, have a brief rest, work for a few more hours, and have a rest, and repeat this day after day, year after year. And at a certain age we would be put into a meat grinder and mixed with corn, soybeans, and wheat, and then fed to pigs and chickens.

The reason our homes are pleasant rather than functional is because the businesses that produce houses are competing to please us. Unfortunately, businesses are not competing to please us with jobs. As a result, they are designing jobs primarily according to what would be best for the business.

Of course, businesses have to take into account the fact that people must be willing to work at the job, and so they have to offer working conditions that people will tolerate. However, those working conditions can vary tremendously. At one extreme are the jobs for people who are intelligent and independent. They will not tolerate much abuse, and as a result, their employer has to provide them with a nice working environment and reasonable wages. At the other extreme are the people who are easily abused, such as children, idiots, retards, and emotionally disturbed people. They can be given very abusive working conditions.

To make the situation more complicated, if businesses conspire with one another to blacklist certain employees, or if they can maintain high unemployment levels, or if they can make it very difficult to find a job, then they can get away with even more abusive conditions because people will be frightened of losing their job.

All of these problems are supposed to be taken care of automatically by the free enterprise system because the "ordinary" people are supposed to drive the abusive businesses to bankruptcy, but it should be obvious that the ordinary person is overwhelmed with modern society and is not doing the job he is expected to do.

Unions and government regulations try to compensate for the failure of the ordinary people, but they do not solve the problem because the unions and government agencies are as corrupt as the businesses, and possibly worse!

The only solution to these problems is to redesign society so that the government has control over the economy. Of course, this requires that we be capable of creating an honest, competent government, but if we can do so, then we would be able to design jobs primarily for human life rather than for profit.

We should design jobs with the same attitude as we design our homes. We need to take into account whether the job is practical for the human mind and body, and whether people will enjoy it. We should enjoy going to work. A job should be a pleasure. We will not always enjoy all of the tasks that we have to do, but overall, we should enjoy getting out of our home, getting together with other people, and doing some useful work.

Businesses today are more concerned about providing pleasant working conditions for their employees compared to the businesses of the 1800s, but there are a lot of businesses showing little or no concern for us. Perhaps the best example are the Buckingham palace guards who have to remain motionless, even when pretty women torment them. Remaining motionless supposedly causes blood clots, so this type of job should be considered unhealthy. It's also idiotic because nobody benefits from it. Who besides a King or Queen would demand that people behave like this?

Some artists have remained motionless for artistic displays, but they do that for fun, not as a career. Every job should take into account the fact that the human body needs to move once in a while. People should not be expected to sit or stand motionless for long periods of time.

There are also businesses that treat all employees virtually the same, regardless of whether they are male or female, pregnant, nursing young babies, old, or suffering from some physical disability or medical problem. Feminists want women treated the same as men, but who is harmed if we provide pregnant women with different working conditions or hours? Who will be harmed if we provide old or physically disabled people with special working conditions or hours? We could say that it is simply adjusting the job to fit the person.

There are also businesses that expect their employees to do repetitive physical tasks that can cause physical injuries. The people who do these jobs should be able to switch from one task to another so that their muscles and joints can have a rest.

Some people have to do unpleasant tasks, such as slaughtering pigs, but businesses expect them to do these jobs hour after hour, day after day. Our distant ancestors would slaughter animals, but they did not do so for a career. The human mind was not designed to do such tasks over and over, year after year. The people with emotionally unpleasant jobs should have some variety so that they don't get disgusted with their jobs.

There are some people who have to do physically demanding work, but the human body cannot produce its maximum physical effort all day, day after day. Some hummingbirds fly across the Gulf of Mexico during their migration, which is an 18 hour, nonstop flight without any opportunity to rest, eat, or get a drink of water. Unlike larger birds, hummingbirds do not glide very well, so they are doing a lot of work. How many humans are capable of 18 hours of intense physical labor without stopping for water or food?

We should design jobs so that the people with emotionally unpleasant or physically difficult tasks can have some variety. We have to be willing to sacrifice some efficiency in order to provide everybody with a job that they can enjoy. If we cannot make a job enjoyable, we can at least make it less miserable.

Some people don't care if the farm workers enjoy picking strawberries, or if the factory workers enjoy pulling the guts out of chickens. Some people are also abusive with their nannies, maids, and gardeners. This attitude is one of the reasons we have unions, Marxism, and endless fights between rich and poor people. The arrogant, selfish people who have no concern about other people are like savages. In this modern world, people need to be team members.

I have heard some people say that they don't care about the soldiers dying in the Middle East because they volunteered to join the military, so the soldiers deserve whatever they get. Why not apply this attitude to firemen or policemen? When a fireman or policeman is injured in their job, we could tell them, "That's your tough luck. You volunteered for the job, dumb ass."

When a pregnant woman has troubles with the pregnancy, the doctors could respond, "That's your problem. You volunteered to get pregnant." We could tell the victims of automobile, train, bicycle, and airplane accidents that they volunteered to travel in that manner, so they can suffer the consequences.

If a person hurts himself because he deliberately behaved in a reckless manner, such as this man, then we could tell him that he has to suffer the consequences. However, when people are hurt accidentally, especially if it happens while they are doing a job, then we have an obligation to take care of them. Unfortunately, some people are so much like animals that they don't think of other people as team members, and they don't care what happens to other people.

Humans differ in their selfishness, and if all of us were as selfish as the most selfish people, our societies would not function. Another way to look at this issue is that if we were to remove the most selfish people from society, we would find that the remaining people are much more interested in being team members, and that would cause society to operate more efficiently. Those people would create a society in which there is more concern for everybody's job, safety, and health. They will be more willing to make sacrifices in order to help everybody enjoy their job and their life.

Furthermore, providing some people with variety in their jobs can sometimes increase efficiency rather than decrease it. I can see this with my own life. There are times when I am doing a particular physical or mental task and I either get bored, or I run out of ideas for what to do next, and when that happens, I switch to another task rather than continue pushing forward and getting nowhere.

The tendency today is to give each employee only one task, and it is possible that some people prefer to do one task all day long, but we ought to consider that some people become more productive when they have two or more projects that they can switch between.

There is another reason why I bring up this issue of providing people with more than one task to switch between. Specifically, I think we should design a government that encourages people to take part-time and temporary jobs with the government. For example, when the government is involved with making a decision about which research project to fund, instead of expecting some full-time government employees to make these decisions, I think it would be better to encourage some scientists who have experience with that particular subject to join the government on a temporary, part-time basis so that they can get involved with the decision rather than leaving it to the government employees. (I'll explain more about this concept in the section about government below.)

We need a government employment division

Everybody wants the benefits of modern society, such as electricity, food from around the world, houses, and clothing. Producing these benefits requires teamwork, and we should not allow anybody to take the benefits of our teamwork without contributing something in return. Everybody should be a "team member". Nobody should be able to claim special privileges. For example, we should not tolerate anybody behaving as if they are the "owner" of the team and demanding special privileges, and we should not tolerate anybody who behaves as if they are a "guest" who benefits from the team but doesn't contribute.

Everybody wants the benefits of the team, so everybody should be a member of the team, and every member should be analyzed to ensure that they are behaving in a responsible manner and contributing something of value.

This concept also applies to women. In the world today, women are allowed to marry wealthy men, make a lot of money from divorce settlements, and inherit lots of money. This allows the women to live like pampered Queens. If they have children, they can pay other people to raise their children. In a previous file, I mentioned that Ariana Huffington not only hired a nanny to take care of her children, she hired a nanny who was accused of being in the country illegally.

The wealthy women who do nothing for society and don't even take care of their own children are just glorified parasites. Other people are providing them with enormous amounts of food, electricity, shoes, child care, houses, jewelry, hotels, airplane rides, and cosmetics, but we get nothing in return.

If a woman is raising children, then she is doing something useful, but raising children only takes a small portion of her life. The feminists complain that raising children is a full-time job, but the reason raising children is so difficult today is because:
1) Many women are raising defective children, whereas centuries ago nature, or their fathers, killed most of them.
2) We are so tolerant of crime and pedophilia that many parents are afraid to let their children spend their time outdoors with other children, and this is causing a lot of children to remain at home more than they want to, thereby bothering their mother.
3) People are living so far away from one another that many children stay home simply because of the difficulty in getting together with their friends.

Rather than encourage women to whine about the difficulty of raising children, we should change society so that it becomes easier to raise children. This would allow women to raise children and have plenty of time during the day for other activities. We could even experiment with providing children with more school and other activities so that they remain in school longer, including the summer.

My suggestion is to create a society in which the basic necessities are provided for free. In this type of society, there are no wealthy, pampered parasites. Nobody can get wealthy from marriages, divorces, inheritances, lotteries, or investments. Everybody, both men and women, become team members who have a job and contribute to society. This requires the government help us find jobs rather than expect people to find a job for themselves. It also requires that the government allow women with children to take jobs on a part-time basis.

The free enterprise system has no provisions to provide part-time jobs to women with children, or adjust the working conditions to fit pregnant women or people who are old, physically weak, or disabled. The free enterprise system treats humans as donkeys.

Finding a job in a free enterprise system is difficult and inefficient. For one reason, it is difficult to find the available jobs. We have to look through advertisements, or go to employment agencies, or ask businesses or friends. It would be more pleasant and efficient if the government was in control of all of the jobs because that would allow them to list all jobs in a database, thereby letting us see what jobs exist, which are available now, and which will be available soon because of retirement or other reasons.

Another irritation of the free enterprise system is that after we locate the available jobs, we waste time and resources applying for jobs. We fill out resumes and job applications over and over. It would be better for the government to keep a database that has all of our school records, job history, medical information, and physical characteristics. If you want a particular job, all you should have to do is let that group of people know that you are interested in their job, and they can look in the database for information about you.

Another irritating aspect of the free enterprise system is that there are extreme differences in the salaries of jobs. This can cause people to pick jobs they don't like because the job they prefer doesn't pay very much. It would be much better if the government provided all of the basic necessities for free. In such a case, the jobs would either pay nothing, or they would pay some trivial amount simply as a way of providing people with money for the scarce resources.

When all jobs pay virtually the same amount, then people will not select jobs according to the salary. Instead, they will select jobs according to what they want to do, and what they are capable of doing.

When somebody suggests that all jobs offer the same pay, some people, usually the people who refer to themselves as "conservatives", will respond that many people will pick jobs that are "fun" or "easy". For example, in a free enterprise system, a doctor and an engineer make more money than a gardener, and - according to the conservatives - if all jobs paid the same, many of the doctors or engineers would have become gardeners instead.

There are two issues to consider. First of all, we should stop treating humans as dogs that are chasing a mechanical rabbit. If a person is not interested in being an engineer, then he should not be an engineer. We don't need engineers who work only for money. Those engineers are just circus seals who perform a trick for a fish. They will do the bare minimum necessary, and they don't care what they do. A team is better when the members who become engineers actually want to do that work. When a team consists of people who are working only for money, their motivation will be lower, they will be easier to bribe, and they will focus on making money rather than doing their job.
We should not use rewards and punishments to push people into doing things that they do not want to do. We should let people be in their "natural" condition. It would be better for society if the people who became engineers were truly interested in engineering. Likewise, the people who become doctors should be truly interested in helping us with our health. A society of humans will be more pleasant than a group of circus seals.

The attitude in the world today is that humans can be manipulated with rewards and punishments, but I think this is a destructive philosophy. Instead of trying to control or manipulate people, we should restrict reproduction to the people who are better adapted to society. This will eventually result in people who work because they want to work, not because somebody is offering them money.

A scientist who is working only for money, Nobel prizes, or fame is not going to care about what he does. He will be willing to lie about the collapse of the World Trade Center towers; promote Holocaust propaganda; and promote the theory that the government can stop global warming with carbon taxes. We don't need scientists whose goal in life is money or fame. We don't need doctors like that, either, or carpenters, factory workers, or gardeners. Ideally, everybody would be contributing to society because they actually want to be part of the team and contribute to society. We should not have to force anybody to be a productive member of society, and we should not have to force anybody to be honest, either.

Imagine living in a society in which everybody is contributing because they truly want to contribute. Imagine going to a park and meeting gardeners who are working because they want to make the park a nice place for everybody, not because they can't figure out how to avoid work. Imagine going to a restaurant where people are providing food because they want to make meals that we enjoy, not because they are hoping we will leave money on the table for them. Imagine that the city holds a festival and the people who provide us with entertainment actually enjoy providing entertainment for us rather than because they are miserable creatures who expect enormous amounts of money.

Incidentally, once we create a better society, the people who provide entertainment for us could get a lot of ideas by making fun of what we do today. For example, at a city festival we could be entertained by a comedy skit in which a family is following the free enterprise system to an extreme. The parents require that the children pay rent for their bedroom, and purchase all of their food and clothing. The parents offer chores for their children, but each child has to apply for a chore by filling out a resume and a job application for that particular chore. If they want to switch to another chore, they have to fill out another resume and another job application. One of the chores that the parents are offering the children is to stand at the front door of the house as motionless as the Buckingham palace guards.

Everybody would consider the parents of that family to be psychotic, but a society is just a large family, so it is just as psychotic for a society. The government should have an employment division that behaves like responsible parents. Parents provide chores for their children, and none of the children have to fear getting fired. If a child is substandard at a particular task, or if a child makes mistakes, the parents do not file a lawsuit against him or punish him. Rather, they either provide him with some training, or they give him another task. Parents want to help their children, not hurt them or exploit them. Parents want their children to be more productive team members. No parent would demand their child stand motionless at the front door for hours, day after day. No parent would make his child do a repetitive physical task to such an extreme that he develops physical problems.

We can and should create a government employment division that treats us as parents treat their children. This government agency would help us to find jobs, and nobody would have to worry about becoming homeless when they are between jobs.

We should learn to enjoy competition and learn from failure

Businesses do not want to put their employees into competition with one another because many people would react by cheating. However, when the government has control of the economy, the best policy is for the government officials to put everybody into competition. This includes the government officials; they should be competing also. They should not have a free ride.

Competition is the only way to determine who is better at a particular task. There is no way to "figure out" who should be classified as a scientist, or which engineer is more talented, or which mechanic is more efficient. The only way to determine our talents and limitations is to put us into competition and observe our performance.

In the free enterprise system, people rarely compete in a fair manner. There is a lot of fighting, cheating, deception, abuse, blackmail, intimidation, and nepotism. We have to design society so that the people who cheat are removed, and we have to make sure that there are no losers in the competition. For example, when mechanics compete to maintain bicycles, the mechanics who repeatedly do the worst job should simply be given another job. Nobody should be afraid of getting fired from their job.

Schools should start the process by getting children accustomed to both competition and failure by putting children into lots of different competitions. Our schools today are putting children in competitions, but virtually all competitions are voluntary, so children can select the competitions that they are good at. Our schools are not preparing them for society, or helping students discover their talents and limitations. Schools are not helping children learn from failure or criticism, either. Schools are not even bothering to teach the difference between constructive criticism and worthless criticism. Instead, our schools are trying to please parents and children. Some students are getting through school without ever failing at anything or experiencing much criticism.

I think schools should be more realistic. The more intelligent students, for example, should be given more difficult assignments. If they become scientists, engineers, computer programmers, doctors, or government officials, they will be dealing with very difficult tasks. Schools should help children become productive team members. Schools should not encourage arrogance. Schools need to encourage students to become accustomed to competition and criticism, and learn about their strengths, weaknesses, and desires.

Competition should be considered as a valuable analytical tool. When we put people - including government officials! - into competition, then we can determine who is better at different tasks. All of society will benefit as a result, including the people who failed at the competitions and had to take different jobs.

Provide jobs specifically for retired people

When we take control of our economy, we can take into account the fact that we deteriorate from age. We can't expect people to do physically demanding jobs throughout their entire life. When people start becoming physically weak, or if they suffer from accidents or cancer or diseases, they should be able to switch to jobs that are more appropriate for their particular condition. I also think that we should deliberately create lots of part-time jobs for retired people.

The attitude in America is that retirement is our "golden years", but I think that philosophy is coming from people who are either very ignorant, or more like an animal. I don't think we should promote the philosophy that it is fun to spend the final years of your life doing absolutely nothing. Doing nothing is pleasurable only when your body or mind has deteriorated to such an extent that you cannot do anything.

In American cities, it is impractical for retired people to have part-time jobs because of the difficulty with transportation, but if we designed a city in which the transportation is underground and automatic, such as subways, retired people could easily travel to a job. Furthermore, by living in that type of large "castles" that I've described, some of the retired people would be able to get jobs within their own building. A lot of people in America are afraid to use subways because of the crime, but the solution to that is to stop tolerating crime. Some people dislike subways because they are so filthy, noisy, and ugly, but we can easily solve that problem, also, if we stop looking for excuses to do nothing and start thinking of ways to improve our cities.

Some retired people wouldn't be able to do much other than assist a few hours a day with the care of children, helping at a restaurant, or assisting at a social event, but even if they only do a little work, we all benefit a lot more than if they did nothing. Furthermore, there are a lot of older people with a lot of useful experience. We could provide some part-time jobs for them that would put their experience to use. For example, if we switch to an electronic education, then it would be easy for older people to have part-time jobs in education.

Once again I like to point out that I am not proposing a new or untested concept. Many parents ask their retired parents to help with childcare. Why not make this policy official by deliberately creating jobs for retired people to help with daycare? Some businesses provide day care for their employees, so why not try to arrange for more of those day care jobs to be available on a part-time basis for retired people?

If you think of society as a big family, then retired people are like your grandparents. Do you want to see your grandparents sitting in the house all day and getting bored? Our ancestors never had this issue because they tended to die between 40 and 50, but we ought to stop ignoring the issue of old age and retirement and start doing something about it. Why not design a city specifically to deal with this issue?

For another example, there is a building in my city for older people, and some of them voluntarily do some of the physically simple gardening tasks for their building, even though nobody asked them to do so. None of them are doing any physically demanding gardening tasks, but 20 retired people doing 15 minutes of gardening each week adds up to a lot of gardening. It helps the retired people remain in a good mood, and it reduces the work that the gardeners have to do.

All I am proposing is that we go even further. The government employment division should be actively looking for jobs for retired people. They will not be able to find a job for all of them, but the more jobs they provide, the better for everybody.

Most people have the attitude, "Who cares?" Who cares that retired people are bored and miserable? Who cares that people are suffering from automobile accidents or the wars in the Middle East? Who cares that the Jews are lying to us about 9/11 and the Holocaust?

Most people are not "bad" or "evil"; rather, they are like our primitive ancestors whose primary concern was feeding themselves, reproducing, and fighting for status, mates, and territory. They were wonderful people thousands of years ago, but they are selfish, inconsiderate, abusive savages today.

Imagine living in a city that restricted immigration to people who actually want to be team members. Imagine that if there are accidents on a particular transportation line, the people actually care enough to get together to discuss possible methods to reduce the injuries. Imagine living in a city in which everybody is truly concerned about whether you and other people have friends, enjoy your job, and enjoy life itself. Living in that city would be like living in a big family. However, we cannot create that type of society with laws, deception, or punishments. It requires finding the people who are more human and less like a primitive savage.

Be tolerate of part-time jobs

In a free enterprise system, businesses are under pressure to make profit, so they want a small number of employees who work full-time, and exclusively for them. They don't want a large number of employees working part-time, and they don't want any of their employees working for their competitors. Furthermore, transportation is time-consuming in all cities, and this puts pressure on us to have one full-time job rather than several part-time jobs.

By comparison, when the government takes control of the economy, and when all the basic necessities are provided for free, the people in the city behave as if they are sailors on a submarine. The government will have a lot of tasks that need to be done, but the government has no concern for who does which task, or whether a task is accomplished by one person working full-time, or 10 people working part-time. The government simply wants all of the tasks to be accomplished properly. This gives us a lot of options in regards to jobs. We can make more jobs available on a part-time basis, thereby allowing people to have several different jobs. People can even work for businesses that are technically competing with each other.

For example, consider a free enterprise system in which a bicycle factory experiences a reduction in sales. If the reduction appears to be temporary, then the business will have a temporary excess of employees. What should they do with those excess employees? Some businesses will reduce everybody's hours; other businesses will lay off the excess employees until there is more work; and some businesses will reduce everybody's salary.

The opposite situation is also a problem for free enterprise. Specifically, what does the bicycle factory do if it gets orders for a lot more bicycles? Should the business hire some people on a temporary basis, or should they ask their employees to work overtime?

In a free enterprise system, employees are treated as donkeys or slaves, but when the government is in control of the economy, the people are treated like sailors on a submarine. Everybody is considered to be a team member, not a competitor. The people do indeed compete with each other, but to help society, not to destroy one another. This allows us to bring some sense to the problem of temporary excesses or deficiencies in employees.

For example, if a particular bicycle factory is reducing its production of bicycles, the managers could notify the government employment department that they have some excess labor. If some employees were not needed at all, the government would find them a new job, and if some were needed, but only on a part-time basis, then the government would find them another part-time job.

The government can apply this concept to the factory itself. For example, if the bicycle factory has to cut back in its production of bicycles, and if that factory is capable of producing other products or components, such as tubes for heat exchangers, then the government will tell them to keep all of their employees, and when they finish with their weekly production of bicycles, they should produce some other tubular items in order to reduce the burden on another factory.

When the government has total control of the economy, and the government owns all of the factories and raw materials, then the government wants all of those factories to be working, not sitting idle. Therefore, the government doesn't care which factories are doing which work. They just want the work to be accomplished.

This system makes it practical for people to work with their competitors, which would be impossible in a free enterprise system. For example, if a particular bicycle factory was reducing its production of a bicycle because the demand for that particular type of bicycle was dropping, and if a competing bicycle factory was increasing its production because people were increasing the demand for that model, the excess employees at one factory could be told to switch over to the other factory.

This situation happens in a free enterprise system when people are laid off or quit their job and apply for a job in a different factory, but the process is much easier when the government is in control because nobody has to go through the process of quitting jobs or applying for new jobs. In a free enterprise system, we lose a lot of important benefits when we lose a job, and we often have to start at a lower salary with a new job, but when the government is providing all of the basic necessities for free, we can switch between jobs without any concern about losing anything.

It would also be possible for some people to work part-time with their competitors. For example, if a quality control inspector at a bicycle factory was needed only on a part-time basis, then he could also work part-time at another bicycle factory, even though the two factories are technically competing with each other. In this type of economy, the competition is friendly, and it is intended to inspire one another. As a result, the employees are team members who try to help one another for the benefit of the team. The employees are not enemies who try to sabotage, destroy, blackmail, bribe, or subvert one another.

This system is especially useful for dealing with the problem of government employees who don't have anything of value to do. The difficulty of finding jobs today causes government employees to resist attempts to eliminate their jobs, and as a result, governments grow in size every year. When the government is in control of the economy, then whenever a government employee is not needed, they can be assigned a job with one of the businesses, farms, schools, or factories. Furthermore, if a government employee is needed, but only on a part-time basis, then he can be assigned a part-time job outside of the government.

Firemen are an example of who would benefit from this. It's silly to expect firemen to sit in a firehouse all day, every day. It would be better if the firemen were doing some useful work when they were not needed as firemen. There are different ways that we can accomplish this. One is to arrange for firemen to do jobs that are near their firehouse so that they could easily get to the firehouse when they were needed. Another possibility is to design the firehouse so that some of them are working inside the firehouse, such as doing computer work; testing of components; or assembly of small items. There are people on an aircraft carrier that are specifically trained to deal with fires, but they don't spend their time sitting in a room all day and waiting for a fire.

In a free enterprise system, people cling to jobs like a frightened animal in a flood, but once we take control of our economy, the government will find jobs for us, and we will be able to change jobs very easily. We will also be able to alter jobs to make them more pleasant. In some cases, the government will cause inefficiency by providing us with jobs that we enjoy, but my response to that problem is, so what? Are we living only for efficiency? If all we want from life is efficiency, then we should stop living in nice homes and start living like chickens in a cage.

Yes, we will sometimes create inefficiency by altering jobs so that they become more pleasant, but I think it is better to live in a society in which everybody wants to go to work and is happy with life compared to what we have today in which an enormous percentage of the population hates their job. Besides, how productive are people when they don't like their job? Many of them are not really "working". They are just passing time. For all we know, the people who have the unpleasant jobs will do better when we give them more breaks, or provide them with more variety, or reduce their hours. Until we start experimenting, how will we know? We cannot be afraid to experiment with life. Learn to enjoy the adventure of life!

Reduce income disparity

When the government provides basic necessities for free, and when it is in control of the economy, we have lots of options regarding how to divide up the scarce resources. For example, every job could pay a small wage so that we have money to purchase the scarce resources. If we decide to use this method, then we have the option of letting every job pay the exact same wage, or having what we see today in which there is a wide variation in wages.

If we decide to be paid for our jobs, my suggestion is to do something similar to what the government does, which is pay people according to job category, rather than according to the job. For example, all engineering jobs should pay the same wage, and all factory jobs should pay the same. One reason for doing this is that it reduces the income differences between jobs, and I think that will cause people to waste less of their time worrying about their income and comparing their income to other people's incomes.

Another reason to set wages according to job category is to simplify the supervision of the economy. Since the government is in control of the economy, it would be a burden on the government officials if they had to provide every job with its own unique salary.

Another advantage to paying people according to the job category is to make it easier for people to have part-time and temporary jobs. For example, when all assembly-line jobs are paying the same wage, if a person is needed at a different assembly line, neither he nor the government has to be concerned that the other job has a different wage. Likewise, if an engineer is needed to help with some other project, he doesn't have to be concerned about wages.

Another option is to require everybody to work a certain number of hours each year, such as 1400 or 2000 hours, simply to live in society and get all of their basic necessities for free. If they want any of the items that we classify as "luxuries" or "scarce resources", then they would need money, and they would have to do additional work for that. With this system, the people who do the bare minimum will get only the basic necessities. Only the people who work overtime would have access to what we regard as luxuries.

In a free enterprise system, a lot of people resist overtime work because they get bored doing the same job over and over, or because their job is too physically demanding. However, when the government controls the economy, people would be allowed to have part-time jobs, and this allows people to do overtime work that is different. An engineer who designs electric motors may not want to do that work on an overtime basis, but he might be willing to take a part-time job in some other area, including in the government.

I think the most pleasant society will result when there is no "peasant class", and the difference between the wealthiest and the poorest people is so small that it doesn't create bitterness or envy between the people. Reducing the income differences between us to something insignificant will also make designing the city much easier because we don't have to produce a wide variety of homes and material items for people of different income levels.

As of today, I think it would be best to produce a city in which all of the housing is for one income level, which gives everybody the same type of housing. The differences between the wealthy and poor people would be other areas. I think this would be psychologically better, and it would also make designing the city much easier. Instead of designing a wide variety of houses for different income levels, we would need only four different types of homes for four different purposes: 1) students, 2) single people, 3) childless couples, and 4) families. When a city is designed for only one income level, it makes it very easy for the people to move around so that they can be with their friends or close to their job.

The idea of a city that has been designed for only one income level might give you visions of the communist housing projects in which everybody is living in a miserable, dreary apartment building. We cannot provide everybody with gigantic mansions and yachts, but we have the resources and technology to provide everybody with a pleasant home. It becomes especially easy to provide everybody with a nice home when we restrict immigration to people who become true team members, and when we become intolerant of criminal behavior.

In our societies today, most of the adult population is not actually contributing anything of value to society. They are making advertisements, taking a percentage of everybody's financial transactions, and other parasitic activities. Some people are worse than parasites; they are destructive to society, such as the crime networks, arsonists, vandals, and pedophiles.

If there were more people contributing to the useful work, it would be very easy for us to provide ourselves with a beautiful, advanced city. For example, if there were more people willing to make colored, glass windows, then we might have so many of them that we could put them into factories and schools. There were more people willing to design, build, and maintain robots, then we would have more robots in the city to do some of the menial tasks. A city is whatever we make it. At one extreme, a group of advertisers, bankers, priests, philosophers, crime networks, and psychologists would create a city in which they live in tents and struggle for food and water. At the other extreme, a group of carpenters, engineers, technicians, mechanics, farmers, factory workers, nurses, doctors, dentists, chefs, and scientists would create a phenomenal city.

Human nature wants us to stratify into a hierarchy, and so we have a tendency to provide people in the leadership positions with more money, better housing, or some other reward. I have no objection to a hierarchy, but - as I will describe in the following section - I suggest reducing the number of levels, and reducing the difference between the levels. I also suggest that instead of providing better housing to the people at the top of the hierarchy, we should provide them with better "social rewards". For example, they could have slightly nicer social clubs or restaurants.

When we reward the people in leadership positions with better houses or more money, we are rewarding the individuals. By comparison, when we reward them with better social clubs and restaurants, then we are rewarding the entire group of people. I think this is psychologically better, and it makes a nicer city.

As I described in previous files, I think we should design cities so that people prefer to spend most of their leisure time outside of their home. In that type of city, most people will spend most of their leisure time at restaurants, social clubs, exercise centers, parks, riding bicycles, playing sports, or doing something outside.

Rewarding the people at the top of the hierarchy with "social rewards" has the interesting side effect of encouraging them to remain in the city for an even longer period of time, which further reduces their concern about whether they have the same type of home as everybody else. The nicer we make our city and the more activities we provide for ourselves, the less all of us will care about our home. This makes it much easier to provide everybody with the same type of home.

One of the reasons that a lot of people want to spend time at home is because they want to do their hobbies at home, and their hobbies are not available in the city. Our free enterprise system is irrational in regards to dividing up resources for hobbies, sports, and other activities. Some activities are being provided with phenomenal amounts of money, and others are getting little or nothing. For example, the people who are interested in automobile racing are getting enormous amounts of funding from corporations, and this allows them to produce extremely expensive automobiles. How many of you are involved with sports or hobbies that get corporate funding?

Once the government takes control of society, it will be responsible for providing us with activities. This will allow us to divide up our resources so that we can provide buildings and supplies for a lot more hobbies and social activities. This will reduce the funding for some people's activities, but the rest of us will find that we finally get some support from society for our particular activities.

The people who experience a reduction in funding for their activities might complain, but they don't need phenomenal amounts of resources. The corporate sponsorship is giving them additional money, but it doesn't make their activity any better. Rather, it makes it more expensive.

Automobile racing is a good example. If they had never had corporate funding, their automobiles would be much less expensive, and the vehicles would travel at a slower speed. Their vehicles would be more like lawnmowers or dune buggies. This would make it much easier for more people to participate. The sport would be more fun and less dangerous, and it would allow more people to participate rather than be a passive spectator.

We don't like the concept of treating everybody in an equal manner, but my response is, so what? The people who like automobile racing might complain that they deserve a larger slice of the resource pie because there are so many of them, and some wealthy people will definitely complain that they deserve a larger slice of the pie because they are special people. I think the best policy is to tell all of them to deal with it.

Fewer job categories makes us more equal

In the world today, there are extreme differences in incomes, but I think it would be psychologically better to have fewer job categories and income levels in order to reduce the problem of people worrying about their category; comparing their salary to other people's salaries; and feeling special because they are in a particular category. It would also be easier for the government when there are fewer categories. I would recommend that we start with only three different job categories. I don't know which words would be best to describe them, so for now I will use these:
1) Laborers and trainees. This category would be dominated by teenagers, people who just got out of school, and people who are switching to a job that they need training for.

2) Workers. This would be most of the jobs.

3) Leaders. This would be the jobs that are primarily intellectual rather than physical, such as doctors, engineers, computer programmers, managers, and supervisors of business, government, and schools.

In the world today, there are extreme differences in income, and this is causing extreme differences in housing, automobiles, clothing, and other products and services. Some people can afford private jets, while others can only afford a bicycle. Businesses must provide an enormous variety of products for people of different incomes. When we reduce the differences between us, we simplify society because we don't have to produce such a wide variety of products.

Instead of producing a variety of cameras for different purposes and different income levels, we would produce a variety of cameras only for different purposes. If people are willing to accept such equality, it would simplify society because engineers would produce different types of products rather than different variations of a product for different income levels. We would need fewer factory workers, and we simplify maintenance and storage.

When we take control of our economy, we can make decisions about the very expensive material items, such as yachts, gold plated cell phones, and airplanes. My opinion is that we should not produce such luxuries for anybody. We need to produce boats and airplanes, but they should be for society, not for an individual person. Nobody needs their own private airplane or their own private jet.

Consider the issue of airplanes. With the city in control of everything, the city will be providing us with social and recreational activities, and therefore, the city could produce some small airplanes in order to offer us the recreational activity of taking a flight around the city so that we can see what it looks like, and to experience a small airplane. The city could also offer flights around mountains, and flights during the night. A person who enjoys flying an airplane could become one of the pilots who takes us on those flights. The same is true of people who enjoy boats. The city could arrange for activities in which we go on boats for fun, fishing, or whatever reason.

There are already businesses that offer us trips on airplanes and boats, but it would be much more pleasant to let the government create and manage these activities because the government will not push us into spending money or purchasing candy, soda, or tourist gifts. The city government would be in the role of parents who are providing their children with activities for fun, not for profit.

Some people may complain that they want to fly an airplane by themselves or with their friends, not with strangers. It is important to keep in mind that the most valuable thing in life is not gold, money, or fame. It is people. Taking a ride in an airplane in our world today is not much fun for either the passenger or the pilot. A lot of people want to do their activities alone or with only their small group of friends because they don't enjoy the people they live with. However, if we lived in a city in which we trusted and enjoyed one another, all of our activities would become more pleasant. A simple walk in a park would be more pleasant if we lived among people we enjoy compared to living with people we are afraid of, suspicious of, or disgusted with.

If we lived in a more pleasant society, some of the people who enjoy flying, boating, scuba diving, or looking for mushrooms will likely discover that they are developing an interest in becoming a "tour guide" once in a while for afternoon adventures for small groups of people.

Getting back to the issue of the three different job categories, animals, especially the males, want to stratify into a well-defined hierarchy with a position on the hierarchy for each male. Men have such a strong craving for status that they like to imagine that they are climbing up the hierarchy as they grow older. Men become very upset if they move downward in the hierarchy.

I think we should dampen this emotion, not encourage it. I think it would be psychologically better if we created only three categories because this puts the men into very large groups. It puts the men on a totem pole that has only three levels. It makes it more difficult for the men to think of themselves as special. It is also virtually impossible for people to "climb" this type of hierarchy. Most people will enter one level as a young adult and stay there forever.

I think restricting the economy to only three job categories is better because it should cause men to stop worrying so much about their job category and income and focus on something more important, such as enjoying life, society, and their friends. During prehistoric times, it made sense for the men to compete with one another to provide their families with the most food, clothing, and tools, but today that type of competition is idiotic and wasteful.

One reason I put managers, architects, computer programmers, doctors, engineers, and a lot of other people in the "leaders" job category is so that society can treat them as if they are doing equivalent jobs. This makes it a bit more difficult for the men to feel as if they are special.

Another reason that I want to put all of these people together into the category of "leaders" is because I think it would be psychologically beneficial to remind these people that they consider themselves to be more intelligent than the rest of the population, and so they should be using their intelligence to provide society with guidance. They should take a more active role in society. They should not be silent while other people make decisions.

I suppose most people don't think of a doctor as a "leader" or as "providing guidance", but I think that is because most people have the wrong idea of what a "leader" is. Most people visualize a "leader" as a person who smiles at you, praises you, shakes your hand, kisses your baby, and promises to serve you. That is the type of leader that we find in democratic governments, but that type of person is actually better described as a "submissive servant", or a "con artist".

We should consider a leader to be somebody who provides us with guidance and advice, or somebody who can supervise a team. However, a leader is not necessarily going to be our friend, and he will not necessarily want to shake our hand, have dinner with us, or kiss our baby. If we disregard his advice and do something stupid, he may not feel sorry for us. A leader has responsibility for his team, but we should not expect him to be responsible for the people who deliberately misbehave.

I think it would be psychologically better to classify doctors, engineers, computer programers, and other people as "leaders". The difference in attitude is subtle, but I think it is psychologically important. For example, doctors today think of themselves as taking care of their patients, similar to how a mother takes care of her baby, or like a mechanic will take care of an airplane engine. I think a better attitude would be that the doctors are providing guidance to us so that we can do a better job of taking care of ourselves. This would put doctors in a similar role as teachers.

Everybody should be taught that they are responsible for their own health, and that we go to doctors when we have problems that we don't know how to deal with. The doctors will provide us with assistance, advice, and suggestions on what to learn and experiment with. We should be told that doctors are here to help us to help ourselves.

With the government in control of the businesses, none of the businesses would be allowed to advertise their drugs, thereby eliminating the problem that doctors deal with now; namely, people who want a particular drug that they saw on television.

When we think of doctors as leaders, then we expect them to put up some resistance to the hypochondriacs and the people who repeatedly need treatment for the same problems because they don't do anything to take care of themselves. Also, since they are in a leadership role rather than our mother, we would not hold them responsible for people who refuse to learn about their medical problems, or who behave in an idiotic manner.

Likewise, mechanical engineers, scientists, and computer programmers should also be considered as "leaders" rather than - as one engineer described himself to me - an "intellectual prostitute" who silently and submissively works on any engineering project, regardless of how worthless, idiotic, or detrimental it may be. Architects likewise are intellectual prostitutes who will design gigantic mansions for billionaires, and other projects that are a waste of society's resources.

I'm not suggesting that the architects, scientists, engineers, computer programers, and other people become rebellious and refuse to do jobs that they disagree with. Rather, I am suggesting that they consider themselves as "leaders". They should take a more active role in determining the future of the human race. If, instead, they remain quiet and avoid involvement, then the decisions about our future will be made by other people, such as incompetent government officials or crime networks. In our society today, it is difficult for this group of people to take an active role, but by changing society, we can make it easy for them to occasionally get involved in decisions about our future.

Some people might respond that if some of the engineers and architects decided to get involved with society's problems, then there would be even more arguments over our future than there are right now. Yes, if more people get involved, there will be an increase in disagreements, but so what? In the world today, not many architects or engineers are involved with society, and this is leaving society to be dominated by crime networks, religious fanatics, pedophiles, and "ordinary" people. Those people argue with each other on a regular basis, but we don't see any of them complaining about it. They are actively fighting each other for control of the world while the supposedly intelligent scientists, doctors, and engineers are behaving like quiet, submissive children.

Another, more important reason that I suggest changing our society so that the engineers, scientists, and doctors can easily get involved with society on part-time basis is because crime networks have an advantage over honest people in regards to influencing society because they can spend a lot more of time on their criminal activities than we can spend fighting them. The Jewish crime network is a good example. They have an enormous number of people who don't have jobs at all, and who can therefore work full-time on the creation of propaganda, setting people up for blackmail, and watching us to identify which of us are their potential enemies.

Many of the Jews in the media and Hollywood have full-time jobs, but some of them are actually using their job to create and spread propaganda and to suppress the people they do not like. The Jews in the government, think tanks, charities, and schools also have full-time jobs, but a lot of their work is for their network, not for us. We assume that all college professors are working full-time to teach students or do research, but many (or most?) Jewish professors, especially those in history, are spending some of their time creating or spreading propaganda, and some of them also observe students and faculty members to identify those who might become their potential enemies.

By altering society so that we make it easy for the honest people to get involved with government on a part-time basis, we can compensate for the advantage that criminals have by giving the honest people more influence over society. If we don't get more of the honest people involved, then society will continue to be dominated by crime networks, blackmailed pedophiles, idiots, religious fanatics, and psychos.

One way to improve this situation is to raise standards for the people who influence society so that we can remove the criminals and idiots from positions of influence. However, removing those people is not enough. We also need to make it easier for people with full-time jobs to participate in the government on a temporary, part-time basis.

Consider how this concept applies the television. In the world today, we have no control over television because a network of Jews has taken control of it, but removing those Jews will not, by itself, give us much of an improvement. Removing the Jews simply allows other people to make the decisions, but who will they be?

We are not doing enough for ourselves if all we do is remove the Jews. We also need to make it practical for a lot of people to occasionally get involved in the decisions of what to put on television. We don't want everybody getting involved on the same day, but when a large percentage of the population participates occasionally, we have a better chance of providing ourselves with a wide variety of programs.

There are proposals to send men to Mars, and to develop various types of electric automobiles, and to develop various types of trains. Who is going to make the decisions about which research projects to fund? Who is going to determine the future of the human race?

We need to raise standards for the people who influence society in order to keep out the criminals and mentally ill people, but that alone is not going to be enough. We also need to make it practical for other people to occasionally participate in the government. (I will describe this concept in more detail in the next section about government.)

Businesses would be entities of the government

When we consider engineers, doctors, and computer programmers as being in the same "leadership" job category as government officials, then it should be psychologically easier for people to realize that they can easily become part-time and/or temporary government officials. For example, the government division that deals with standards for material items doesn't need a lot of full-time employees. Some of the engineers and computer programmers could work for such a division on a temporary and part-time basis. For example, when engineers are designing a new type of USB port, they could offer to become temporary, part-time officials in the government to help set standards. When they are finished with that task, then their government position vanishes and they return to their full-time job.

You may wonder why we should give them a part-time job as a government official rather than just ask for their advice, as we do with consultants. The reason for giving them a job in the government is to give them authority to do something rather than just talk. It gets them involved with society in an active role rather than a passive role.

This integration between government and business is not possible with a free enterprise system, but from the point of view of society, it makes sense to tell the engineers who design items to get involved with the standards for them. Not every engineer will want to get involved, but we don't need all of them involved. We only need some of them. However, if none of them get involved, then somebody else has to make the decisions, but who will that be? It would be people who may not have a good understanding of what they are doing. If the apathy is extreme, then crime networks would be able to influence the decisions.

It would be annoying for an engineer to become a part-time government official if he had to go through the typical, complex process of applying for the job and arguing over his salary. However, when the government is in control of the economy, and when the engineering jobs are in the same job category as the government officials, then it is easy for every person in the "leadership" category to become a temporary, part-time government official.

In order for an engineer to become a part-time government official, he either has to reduce the time he spends at his engineering job, or he has to do the government job during his leisure time. In some cases, he might want to reduce his engineering job, and other cases he might want to do the government job as overtime work. The government would not care. The government's only concern is that everybody is contributing to society.

This same concept applies to analyzing the proposals for new projects. Some engineers and scientists could become part-time government officials to analyze a specific proposal that they are interested in, and they could work as a government official as overtime work, or by reducing the hours they spend on their primary job.

For example, there are proposals right now to send some men to Mars; to build an oil pipeline from the Canadian oil fields to Texas; and to build another telescope. If none of us get involved with these discussions, then who is going to make the decisions? If we depend upon full-time government employees, then we depend upon people who may not fully understand the issues, and may not even be very intelligent or honest. It would be better for everybody if scientists, doctors, architects, and other people would get more involved in society rather than leaving the decisions to government officials and crime networks.

Allowing scientists, doctors, and other people to become part-time, temporary government officials would be much simpler if we treat all of these people as if they are in the same job category. This removes the dividing line between these jobs, which allows people to easily move from one job to another, and to take several jobs at the same time.

In order for this system to work properly and easily, we need to maintain a database that has everybody's school records, medical information, and job performance, and we need to insist that everybody who wants an influential position prove to us that they have the analytical skills that we want in our leaders. As I mentioned in a previous section, a person who wants to an influential position should be required to create some analyses of social issues, and we should pass judgment on whether he is showing signs of proper research and analysis. The only people who would be eligible for the influential positions are those who are classified as "cultural scientists".

Concepts for a new government
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 increasing 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 problems, such 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 temporary 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 jury duty.

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 a trial.

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 hurt 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.

Voters 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, temporary 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 paranoid idiots.

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 everywhere 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 turnover rate

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 news.

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 variety.

We should differentiate between types of leaders

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

1) Supervisors
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 locations.

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 helping mankind.

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 American government.

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 Ryan shirtless".

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 tax money.

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 from somebody.

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 executive.

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 follow orders.

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 lower-level leaders

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 leaders.

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 structure 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 other.

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 industry.

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 a scientist.

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 us.

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 psychos.

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 failing. 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 landing.

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 analyses 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 impress us.

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, or marriage.

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 opportunities 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 only 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 adults. This 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 and powerful

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 impossible 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 millions of people!

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 each 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 productive. 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 job.

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 accomplishments

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 businesses 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 of schools.

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 over.

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 leadership abilities.

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 everybody 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 president!"

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 rehabilitation programs.

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 reduce government!

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 millions 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 opposite. 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 rate

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 incompetent 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 us 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 to them

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 positions.

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.

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 is 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 our own lives.

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 them.

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 protection.

Leaders should not pander to idiots
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 awkward.

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 content 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 accidentally 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.

Concepts for voters and candidates
The voters are analogous to a Personnel Department
Thousands of people are being hired for a job every day in businesses, schools, government agencies, and churches. Many of us know a few people who vote for government officials, but do you know any of the people who are responsible for hiring IBM executives, airline pilots, school officials, plumbers, teachers, nurses, journalists, or policemen? Who is selecting people for a role in a Hollywood movie? Who is selecting television newscasters and talk show hosts? Who is selecting the journalists for the New York Times? Who is selecting the executives of the Red Cross or the NFL? Who is determining who becomes a doctor or a dentist?

In addition to not knowing who makes these employment decisions, we do not have access to information about those decisions. No organization is providing us with documentation about who has applied for a job, who has been rejected, and why they have been rejected. As a result, we cannot review any of their decisions to ensure that they are making sensible decisions rather than rejecting people simply because they are of a certain age, sex, race, religion, or favouring their friends, family members, or members of a crime network when hiring people.

The points I want you to think about are:
1) Most of us have no influence over the thousands of hirings that occur every day.
2) We don't have access to information about the hirings so we cannot verify that the employment decisions are sensible.
3) None of us are demanding that we have the freedom to get involved in making decisions about who becomes a newscaster, airline pilot, or business executive. Nobody is demonstrating in the streets for their right to participate in the selection of the executives of charities, churches, or schools.

Since people are willing to allow unknown groups of people to make secret decisions about millions of jobs, why not let secret groups make secret decisions about government officials, also? Why bother letting people vote? Or why not allow the public to vote for even more positions, such as business executive, pilot, teacher, and news journalist? Why not let the Catholic people vote for their Pope and bishops?

Another way to look at this issue is that the millions of voters are essentially the "Personnel Department" for the nation's top officials. The voters look through job applicants and hire some of them for government positions, just like the Personnel Department of a business looks through job applicants and hires some of them for jobs in their business.

However, when you compare the performance of the voters to the personnel departments of businesses, schools, and other organizations, the voters are without a doubt the worst performing, most obnoxious, and most wasteful of the personnel departments. The voters, as a group, are much more easily manipulated by criminals and advertisers, and the voters do the most simplistic and idiotic analysis of the candidates. Even the Personnel Department with the stupidest people is doing a better job of analyzing job applicants.

If we were to allow the majority of people to vote on who becomes an airline pilot, would we get higher-quality airline pilots? If the Catholics had been allowed to vote for their Pope, would the Catholic Church have been better in any way? Would there be less pedophilia in the church? Would Galileo have been treated better?

People have been voting for government officials for a long time, and this gives them a "performance history". This allows us to look over the performance of voters and pass judgment on whether they have been handling their responsibility properly. I don't think anybody can find even one instance in which the voters have made a wise decision. Most of the voters are so ignorant or stupid that they do not even realize that crime networks are dominating the election process and controlling who becomes a candidate. Some voters realize that their candidates are terrible, and some voters realize that the candidates are being influenced by secretive people with money, but they don't care about this problem. Their attitude is to vote for the "lesser of the evils".

Although the voters are the worst performing "Personnel Department", all of the systems we use to select people for jobs are in need of improvement. We don't have to tolerate group of Jews controlling the jobs in the media, for example. We have the intelligence to create a society in which people can find jobs in a more sensible manner, and with less of a problem with bias, nepotism, corruption, and discrimination. Our methods of selecting people for awards, such as Nobel prizes, also need to be improved. Crime networks, mostly Jews, are often manipulating decisions about who gets a job, and who wins a prize.

Another problem to deal with is that individual criminals are sometimes passing through the training and selection process that is supposed to suppress the incompetent and dishonest people. For example, there is evidence that the Jews are influencing the selection of the Pope, and criminals are getting through the process that we use to train and select policemen, and pedophiles are getting through the process that we use to train and select doctors.

I would say that the single biggest problem with the world are the crime networks and the individual criminals. If we were less tolerant of crime, we would do more to improve the world and at much faster rate than anything else. The people who think we can improve the world by giving citizens more control over government or by encouraging more people to carry guns are idiots.

For example, our media has been taken over by a network of criminal Jews, and they are putting propaganda in our school history books; lying to us about news events; and promoting toilet humor. Would we improve the situation by letting the majority of people vote for the top executives of the media companies? Would we protect ourselves from these criminals by carrying guns? The answer is obviously no. Millions of Americans are already voting for government officials and carrying guns, but they are doing absolutely nothing to stop the Jewish criminals.

We should select government officials as we select scientists

There is no sense allowing the majority of people to vote for government officials. They have proven themselves to be incompetent as members of a Personnel Department. It would be better to set up a system that selects government officials in a manner that is similar to the way we select scientists, airline pilots, dentists, and other skilled workers. The process will not perfect, but there is no perfect process. Furthermore, the primary problem with these systems is criminals, so people who are truly interested in improving the world should be less tolerant of crime.

The method we use to select scientists, dentists, pilots, and other skilled workers is to first required that they go to school and take courses that have been designed to train them in whatever field they are interested in. The students who pass their courses are eligible for entry level positions. For a certain period of time, which may be several years, those graduates are analyzed to ensure that they are functioning properly in their job. Only after they have proven themselves capable of doing their jobs properly are they allowed to refer to themselves as a dentist, scientist, pilot, or whatever.

We can do the same for government officials and voters. The people who want to become government officials would be required to take certain courses that have been designed to give them practice in the research and analyses of the type of issues that they will face as a government official. As with scientists, the students who are training to be government officials would need to prove that they are excellent in research and analysis, but unlike scientists, the government officials must also demonstrate an excellent ability to control their emotions and make decisions that are best for society.

As I described in a previous section of this file, the students who pass their courses would be "cultural scientists", and they would be eligible for entry-level jobs as government officials. However, they would still be under close observation, and we would continue to analyze their work to ensure that they are actually performing properly. Those who showed improper thinking or behavior would lose the title of "cultural scientist" and have to take some other job. Only those who demonstrated several years of proper behavior would be eligible for the high level government positions.

Voters would be quality control agents

Crime networks want the majority of people to vote, and they want the voting to be anonymous, because that is the only way they can get their candidates elected. If we restrict voters to people who show above average intelligence and responsibility, and if each voter is required to explain their decisions in a document that is saved in a publicly accessible database, it would be very difficult for crime networks to get their candidates elected.

Voting should not be anonymous or secretive. Instead, each voter would create a document on who they are voting for, and why. These documents would allow us to analyze the voters. We would not be concerned about whether we agree with the voters. Rather, we would pass judgment on whether they are doing proper research on the candidates, and whether their reasoning is valid, faulty, or biased.

We should not allow a large number of people to be voters. A smaller number is better because it makes it easier for us to watch over them and analyze them. How many voters would a city of 1 million citizens need to select their city officials? Why not start with 100 voters? That might not seem to be enough, but what is "enough"? How many people are currently involved in deciding whether a person becomes an airline pilot or whether a student becomes a scientist? There are only a few people making these decisions. We need to focus on the quality of the voters, not their quantity.

Increasing the number of people in a personnel department does not guarantee that they hire better people. It might turn out that the city is better off with only 10 voters because it's even easier to watch over only 10 voters.

Why are there so few candidates for president?

America has more than 300 million people, but during each presidential election there are only a few candidates. How is it possible that only a few people want this job? The reason is that the voters have been fooled into joining one of two political groups, and each group is controlled by a different network of criminal Jews. The Republican Jews offer the Republican voters a few candidates that they control through blackmail, and the Democratic Jews likewise offer a few blackmailed puppets for the Democratic voters. The voters believe that they have a choice, but they only have the choices that the Jews give them.

If we were to get rid of the criminal Jews and the political parties, a lot of the people who have been suppressed by the Jews and the political parties would offer to become President, Congressman, Mayor, and Sheriff. We would end up with a situation that is even worse than what we see in Afghanistan, Egypt, and Iraq after they got rid of their governments and were allowed to have elections. Tens of thousands of people wanted to become government officials in Iraq, for example. America is a much larger nation, so we might have tens of thousands of candidates just for the office of president, and possibly a total of millions of other candidates running for all of the other state, federal, and city positions. It would be absurd for the voters to look through so many candidates.

It doesn't make any sense for a nation to allow every citizen to apply for the top government positions. The most sensible way of selecting government officials is the same way the military and the businesses do it. When the military wants to fill a top leadership position, they do not allow every person in the military to apply for the job. Instead, they consider only the few of the people who are already in a similar leadership position and have already proven themselves capable of handling those positions.

Businesses follow the same philosophy. When they are looking for a top executive, or a senior engineer, or a senior scientist, they will not allow everybody in the nation to apply for the job. They will not consider students who have recently graduated from school, either. Instead, they consider only the people who have already worked in the field and achieved some level of success in a management position.

The reason this philosophy can work with the military and the businesses is because they are doing an adequate job of promoting people into middle management. Therefore, when they need somebody for top management, they can safely promote somebody from middle management. That person may turn out to be inadequate for top management, but he will not turn out to be totally incompetent. It is very unlikely that he would cause any serious damage.

We should apply the same philosophy to government. If the schools would do a reasonably good job of training students for government by giving them an honest education in human culture and history, and if they gave them practice with research and analysis, then we could give those graduates an entry-level job in the government. They would then be observed, and those who show signs of good leadership abilities could be promoted. When we need to put somebody into a top leadership position, we would consider only the people who have made it into the middle management.

The reason we cannot promote middle-management government officials today is because most of the government officials, regardless of whether they are entry-level or middle management, are incompetent, selfish, corrupt, and neurotic. It makes no difference which of them we promote to top leadership positions. Our government is like a crime network. No matter which of them we promote, we end up with a criminal government.

The best way to implement a new government system like this would be to build a new city, and set up the new government system in only that city. There would be a transition period during which schools would be training students to be cultural scientists, but after a certain number of years the government would be full of officials who have proven themselves capable of providing intelligent analyses, and it would be safe to promote them to upper-level government positions.

This type of government system doesn't actually need voters. It could operate just like a business or a military. However, voters could provide checks and balances for this type of government. The voters essentially become "quality control agents". The voters would select people in the middle management to promote, but their primary job would be quality control. They would analyze the government officials to determine if the people they promoted are actually working as expected, and to determine which of them should be replaced, and who should be promoted.

Each voter would be independent. Their job is to analyze government officials and pass judgment on their effect on society. They could be a voter on a full-time basis, or, since it is possible to analyze government officials on a part-time basis, they could have some other job, such as scientist, dentist, or engineer, in which case they would be a voter on a part-time basis.

The voters would analyze the government officials and pass judgment on whether they were honest and actually contributing something to society. They would concentrate on the top government officials, but they could look at any of them that they please, including the students who just graduated from school. They would post their analyses on the Internet for everybody to see. They would also occasionally post a brief message to explain who they recommended to be replaced, fired, or promoted.

If it seems bizarre to have a group of voters analyze government officials and post their opinions about them, consider that we are essentially doing this right now. People are regularly publishing analyses of government officials in magazines and on television, and they also post analyses of policies and issues. However, most of the people who create these analyses are Jews, and they are trying to manipulate us, so their analyses are worthless. However, the concept of people who analyze government officials, policies, and issues is valid.

Instead of reading propaganda from the Jews at Newsweek, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS, we would be able to read more intelligent, more sensible analyses from the voters. However, the voters would do more than just post reports. They would also occasionally get together to vote on which official needs to be replaced or fired. As I've mentioned, I think the top of each government department should have three officials that are virtually equal to one another, and the voters would be comparing them to each other, and regularly replacing one of the three in order to constantly bring in new people.

The only people who would be eligible for the top positions would be one of the lower-level managers, so the voters would simply vote for one of the lower-level managers who was interested in the job. The person who is replaced could remain in the same department, or he could try a different job somewhere else.

The voters would not have to replace leaders on a schedule. They could replace any of the leaders who they felt was not worth keeping in office. If they encountered a situation in which all three were doing an equal job year after year then, after four years, they would simply pick one of the three to replace so that somebody else gets the opportunity. If one of the lower-level leaders could provide some convincing reasons as to why he should replace one of the top officials, then the voters could put him into that top position.

The idea of voters replacing the top leaders in such a casual, almost carefree manner might seem cruel, but we need to change our attitudes towards the people in the very top positions. First of all, they are guidance counselor-type leaders, not supervisor types. All they do is analyze issues and make proposals. They do not supervise teams of people. Therefore, it is very easy to replace them because the government will not be disrupted when they are replaced. Another reason that I think we should have this carefree attitude in regards to replacing them is because I think it is better to bring in new people all the time rather than allowing a small group of people to dominate the government.

Another reason that we are not cruel for replacing a top leader is because all they do is research and analysis, and they can do that without being in a top leadership position. When they are in the top position, they have the authority to actually do something, but once they are removed from that position, they can continue doing their analyses and influencing government. If they truly are talented, they will continue to be a positive influence on society.

When we first try setting up a government like this, it is possible that there will be a lot of leaders replaced very quickly, such as every few weeks or every few months, and that might make the government seem extremely unstable, but eventually it will settle down. Once the government is running smoothly, one of the three leaders would be replaced every four years or so, which is not a frightening rate.

Another important point I want to make about this system is that because nothing is secretive about it, the government officials would be able to look at the analyses that the voters are producing, and that would allow them to find out what the voters are complaining about in regards to themselves or other government officials. The government officials could use the analyses as constructive criticism to become better at their job. It's important to realize that this system is not intended to hurt anybody. Rather, it is intended to improve society. Therefore, if a government official has the ability to listen to criticism and learn from his or other people's mistakes, then it is better for everybody.

Voters would be active, not passive

Our current method of selecting government officials is for voters to be passive and inactive. Voters wait for candidates to apply for the job, and then the voters wait for those candidates to hold meetings, give speeches, or create advertisements. Voters don't make any attempt to find candidates, and they don't make any attempt to analyze or interview them. The candidates are in control of the process, not the voters.

It's interesting to note that voters are both more passive and more abusive than a single woman who is looking for a husband. A woman will put effort into making herself look attractive, and she will frequently go out in the public in order to give men the opportunity to notice her. She will also behave in a pleasant manner when she meets men. By comparison, the voters make absolutely no attempt to find candidates. Furthermore, the voters make no attempt to make themselves attractive to potential leaders. Rather, they irritate candidates with idiotic and whiny remarks about abortion, jobs, and taxes. The voters have nothing intelligent to say, and don't even bother to put any effort into researching or developing any of their complaints or suggestions.

If a single woman were to look for a husband in the same manner that voters look for government leaders, she would sit at home and wait for men to come to her, and she would make idiotic and very selfish demands that the man be her submissive servant. She would never find a "normal" husband. She would only attract men who wanted to exploit her for something, such as money, sex, or housekeeping.

This problem is occurring in the American election system. No "normal" person is interested in becoming a political candidate in this idiotic selection system. The only people who are willing to put themselves through this abusive system are the criminals and the puppets of crime networks. They will tolerate the abuse because they want control of the nation. They have no intention to carry through on their promises to the voters.

We should hire government officials in the same manner that businesses hire senior scientists or top executives. We should treat job applicants and potential leaders with decency. We should not expect them to become members of political parties, raise enormous amounts of money, travel around to give speeches, or kiss anybody's baby.

Voters should have an active role in finding candidates. They should be occasionally analyzing the lower-level government officials and making recommendations on which of them should be promoted to the top leadership positions. Voters should not wait for people to come to them. It is acceptable for people to apply for the job of top government official, but voters should not be like single women who wait for men to come to them. Voters should be like the recruiters for sports teams and businesses who are always looking for people with potential.

Voters need quality control, also

The concept of reducing leaders to a bare minimum also applies to voters. Specifically, the fewer voters we have, the fewer people we have to watch over. It also reduces the burden on society of "non-productive" people.

The majority of people do not consider voters to be "leaders", but voters are in a leadership position because they are determining the leaders of society, which in turn determines our future. We are currently giving this responsibility to virtually every adult, and we never bother to verify that they are doing a proper job. For example, we have no concern for whether a voter is senile or whether he does any research on the candidates.

If a leader turns out to be incompetent or corrupt, then the voters should be blamed for selecting him. Compare that to the situation today in which the voters take no responsibility for their corrupt and incompetent government officials. Instead of blaming themselves, the voters blame "special interests" or "power", and some voters blame the people who do not vote. Some voters blame other political groups for all of the nation's problems. We could summarize this by describing most voters as bratty children who refuse to be responsible for themselves and insist that they are helpless victims.

Voters should be considered as "leaders", and they should be accountable for what they do. Furthermore, the concept of a high turnover rate applies to voters, also. Voters should be considered as government officials in the personnel department. They should be treated just like other government officials. They should have to pass the same school courses and earn the title of "cultural scientist".

Furthermore, the voters should do more than analyze the government officials. They should also analyze one another, and they should continuously replace the worst performing voter so that somebody else is always getting the opportunity to become a voter. Of course, it is risky to allow voters to regulate themselves. Police departments regulate themselves, and there is lots of evidence that organized crime is involved in the process. Scientists are also supposed to regulate themselves, and it's obvious that they are not doing a very good job, either.

I think we can solve this problem by removing the secrecy that we provide voters. The voters in this system are "cultural scientists" who post analyses of government officials, voters, and issues. Their analyses would provide us with documentation of what they are thinking, and why.
This allows us to see which of the voters they want to replace, and why. If at least some of the citizens or government officials occasionally review what these voters are doing, it will reduce the chances that crime networks are getting involved with the process.

This requires that some people get involved with society and watch over the voters. If nobody will do that, then of course corruption will become rampant. A society of sheeple will be easily taken over by crime networks. As I have mentioned many times, an organization can only be as good as its people. In order to create a better society, we need a certain percentage of the population to take an active role in helping to maintain society by identifying and stopping crime networks and incompetence.

“I would never join a group that would accept me as a member.”

There are variations of a joke in which a person mentions that if a social club accepts him as a member, he would not want to join because it would mean that their standards of quality are very low. He wants to join the clubs that refuse to accept people like him. He also wants to marry the women who refuse to marry him.

This joke brings up an important issue. Would you want to go to a doctor who knows less than you about medical issues? If you are single and looking for a spouse, would you want to go to social activities that are designed by people who have been failures in helping people to find a spouse?

You want your surgeon, dentist, or airline mechanic to have above-average abilities. You want restrictions on the people who do critical and potentially dangerous jobs; you want those jobs restricted to the people who are better than average. So, why would you want to live in a society in which the voters are only average in their abilities to select candidates? Why not restrict voting to the people who have proven themselves to be better than average in regards to analyzing political candidates?

The ability to analyze people is becoming increasingly important. We need to analyze people in order to find friends and a spouse and to determine if a person is a destructive member of society or a beneficial member. Supervisors have to analyze their workers to determine if they are doing their jobs properly, or if they're being pushed too far, or if they need some training.

If we could measure our ability to analyze people, we would find that we differ slightly. Some people might be very good at analyzing the members of a construction crew and keeping them very efficient and productive, but that same person might be terrible at analyzing a team of computer programmers or a team of children. Another person might do an excellent job of analyzing people in regards to their honesty, but he might not be so good at analyzing a person's leadership abilities. Some people might be excellent at analyzing women but only average with men.

The attitude in a democracy is that every adult is equally talented in analyzing political candidates and selecting a good leader, but that is an unrealistic philosophy. Some of us will be better as voters than others. However, we cannot figure out which of us will excel as a voter. We have to put some people into the position of voter, and then observe the results. The voters who repeatedly pick people who turn out to be less talented as leaders need to be replaced so that somebody else can have the opportunity to be a voter.

We have different strengths and weaknesses, and the majority of people are "average". If we let the majority of people vote, then we will have "average" decisions. If we want a better government, we need to restrict the voters to the people who consistently prove themselves to be above average at analyzing political candidates and determining their leadership abilities.

Likewise, the people who authorize research proposals should be those who have proven themselves to be better-than-average at analyzing such proposals. The people who arrange courtship activities should be the people who have proven themselves to be among the best at helping men and women meet and get to know one another. The people who become chefs at restaurants should be the people who have proven themselves capable of efficiently providing us with healthy meals that we enjoy.

People want high-quality chefs, pilots, and mechanics, but they don't apply this concept to voters. Why not restrict voting to the people who have proven themselves to be among the best at analyzing candidates for leadership?

When we remove the secrecy that everybody is allowed to operate in right now, and we keep a database of everybody's performance, we can pass judgment on who among us is better at which tasks, and this allows us to put people into the jobs that they are better suited to. This is going to be better for everybody.

We must accept the differences between men and women

I don't see any reason for society to prohibit women from leadership positions, or from becoming car mechanics, scientists, welders, or voters, but we should acknowledge the fact that men and women are different. Women prefer slightly different jobs than men, and, more important, women are better in some jobs, and men are better in others. We also have to acknowledge that some women are masculine, and some men are feminine.

If a woman is interested in becoming a voter, construction worker, or mechanic, and if she qualifies for the job, then it would be acceptable to let her have the job, but we should not promote the feminist philosophy that 50% of all jobs should be given to women. People should be given jobs according to their abilities, not according to their sex or race.

If we judge women by their abilities, we will find that most of them are substandard in regards to research and analysis, and so only a small percentage of the female population will qualify for jobs as scientists, government leaders, and voters. Fortunately, most women are not interested in those jobs. However, when the feminists are allowed to whine about "glass ceilings", then they will convince a lot of women that they are being abused.

This brings me to an issue I mentioned near the beginning of this document. Specifically, we have to pass judgment on which philosophy to promote, and which to suppress. When we allow people to promote feminism, we are encouraging fighting, hatred, and pouting. We must pass judgment on which philosophies are acceptable, and we must suppress the others. Feminism should be prohibited on the grounds that it has no scientific basis, and it is interfering with the relationships between men and women.

Women have had thousands of years to prove their talents in leadership, mechanical design, and construction, and they have also had plenty of opportunities to prove their talents in the more modern activities, such as welding and scuba diving. The feminist propaganda that they have been prevented from achieving their potential is nonsense. The best examples are the women who have achieved leadership positions, such as the Queens.

The Queens of the Middle Ages were dictators who could do whatever they pleased. Europe has had a lot of Queens during the past few centuries, and nobody was preventing any of those Queens from producing intelligent thoughts, developing new mechanical devices, or researching scientific issues. Furthermore, the Queen had the authority and money to hire people to do intelligent activities. For example, after the microscope was developed, any of the Queens could have hired some people to produce microscopes and study the world around them. The Queens could have gotten involved with the debate about Galileo, also, and impressed the world with their brilliant opinions.

There have also been a lot of women married to wealthy husbands, or who inherited a lot of money, and any of those women could also have gotten involved with producing intelligent thoughts, or arranging for other people to do something intelligent.

We have to judge women by their behavior and performance, not what they claim to be. If they were as intelligent as men, we would have seen evidence of this by now. They cannot use the excuse that they are oppressed by men, or that raising children prevents them from doing something intelligent. Actually, because women are frequently pregnant and raising children, they have a much better opportunity to study pregnancy and children than men do. If men and women were equally intelligent, then the women would be providing us with the greatest understanding of pregnancy and children. However, the opposite is true. Some women are so stupid that they don't see any difference in the behavior between boys and girls. Women should also be providing us with the most accurate and detailed understanding of sex from a woman's perspective, but are they even doing that? There may be men who have a better understanding of a woman's sexuality.

For thousands of years women have had an opportunity to make intelligent remarks, develop new technology, and provide guidance to society, but they have proven over and over that their primary interest is socializing and being a mother. We should face the fact that men and women are different, and that men are going to dominate certain fields, such as leadership, science, and engineering.

Where is the evidence that women make good voters?

My grandmother told me that she likes Ronald Reagan because he smiles a lot. This brings up an interesting issue regarding women. Women were never designed to select political candidates, or even husbands. A woman was designed to grow up in a small group of people in which she knows everybody intimately, and her method of selecting a man is to put herself on display and passively wait for a man to get her emotionally excited.

I have heard some women mention that they are looking for a man who is funny, or who is fun to be with. I don't recall hearing a woman say that she is looking for a man who is intelligent, responsible, honest, skilled, or a contributing member of society. Female animals want males who have high status, and who can titillate them. No female animal has an interest in analyzing the males to determine their intelligence, honesty, or skills.

Women have no desire to analyze a man for his value to society. They don't even care if a man has earned his position in life, or if he cheated for it, or if he inherited it. They are looking for entertainment, not men who are worthy of reproducing. This technique worked in prehistoric times, but it doesn't work well today, and it is even worse when women use this technique to select political candidates.

When a woman today looks for a husband by passively waiting for a man to excite her, then she allows low-quality men to become her husband. The dishonest, violent, and psychotic men are just as capable as the rest of us of titillating a woman with compliments, gifts, jokes, and other types of entertainment. Actually, the lower quality men have an advantage because they are more willing to do whatever is necessary to titillate the women. Also, a lot of the low-quality men don't have jobs, or don't work as much, and so they have more time to spend chasing after women and titillating them. As a result, if a woman follows her emotions and looks for a man who is funny, then she allows the lower quality men to become her husband. Today a woman needs to use her intellect to analyze a man's qualities.

When women select political candidates, they will not do a good job if they are passively waiting for a candidate to excite them. They have to take an active role in analyzing the leadership abilities of the candidates. If we were to set up classes in school to train students to become voters, then the students would be given assignments to analyze people and issues, and this would give us an opportunity to determine which of the students are good at this type of task. If a woman happens to be good at it, then she could be a voter, but I don't think many women would be interested in these classes, and of them, only a few would produce intelligent analyses.

I don't mean to imply that all men would make good voters and all women would be terrible. Rather, as I pointed out years ago here, if we were to graph the abilities of men and women, we would find overlapping bell curves. Some of the women would be better as voters, scientists, and engineers than the majority of men, but as a group, the men would be better.

The majority of people, both men and women, are average or below average regards to their ability to analyze candidates. We have to restrict the voters to the people who show above-average abilities to analyze candidates.

Men have a natural resistance to treating women as humans. Our natural tendency is to treat them as princesses or sex toys. Some men believe that if women were in control of the world, there would be no violence or suffering. These men think of women as adorable, loving mothers.

Police reports around the world show us that women are not more honest than men. Rather, they are different. Women have been caught cutting open pregnant women to steal their babies; killing their husbands in order to get their insurance money; and torturing people to death. There is no shortage of women stealing, lying, cheating, and murdering. Females are not better than males. They are simply different.

It is difficult for men to treat women as "humans", and is difficult for women to treat children as "humans". Men think of women as "princesses", and women think of children as "bundles of joy". Men are biased to look at women favorably, and women are biased to look at children favorably. Men have to control themselves in regards to women, and women have to control themselves in regards to children.

Will the majority rebel if they cannot vote?

All throughout history we find the majority of people rebelling against their government when they are not allowed to vote. If we create a society in which a small group of people vote, are we going to face this potential problem, also? Not necessarily.

First, consider the issue of why so few children are rebelling against their parents. Children are virtually slaves of their parents. A child has freedom only if his parents give it to him, and a child has food only if his parents provide it. A child is free of incest only if his father either has no interest in incest or controls himself. Considering the miserable position that a child is in, why don't they complain?

Very young children do not rebel or demand their freedom because they are submissive, but as they grow older, they gain independence, so what is stopping the older children from rebelling? Rather than answer that question, it would be easier to look at the children who rebel and try to figure out what causes them to become angry with their parents. I think there are two primary situations that cause children to rebel against their parents. One is that the children are mentally ill, and the other is that the parents are abusive.

Before I continue, consider that the same concept applies to feminism. Wives, all throughout history, could be described as slaves of their husbands, but only a few women complained about their lack of freedom. What caused those few women to rebel against their husbands? I think there are two primary reasons. One is when a woman is mentally ill, and the other is when her husband is abusive.

Notice that this concept also applies to employees of a business. Most employees could be described as partial slaves who have limited freedom, but only a few employees complain about their lack of freedom. What causes some employees to rebel against their employer and demand freedom? I think there are two primary reasons. One is that the employee is mentally ill, and the other is that the business is abusive to its employees.

I will rephrase these concepts, and I will ignore the problem of mental illness for now: If parents treat their children with decency, then the children will have no objection to letting their parents dominate them. If a husband is doing a good job of caring for his wife and family, then his wife and children will accept him in a position of dominance. If the leaders of a business are treating their employees with respect, the employees will accept their submissive role and allow the business executives to dominate them.

Now consider how this applies to airline pilots and dentists. If we are living in a society in which the airline pilots are competent, then we will be happy to let some mysterious group of people continue to select airline pilots. If the dentists are doing their jobs properly, then we will be happy to let some mysterious group of people train students in dentistry and determine who becomes a dentist. However, if the airline pilots are incompetent, then many of us will become rebellious towards the airlines and complain that we want to participate in determining the school curriculum and who becomes a pilot. Likewise, if the dentists are incompetent, then many of us will rebel against the medical schools and demand that we be able to get involved with deciding the school curriculum and who becomes a dentist.

Now consider how this concept applies to allowing a small group of people to vote for government officials. If those voters are providing us with impressive government officials, and if they are creating a society that we enjoy, then we will be happy to let those voters continue doing their job. However, if those voters are providing us with government officials we despise or fear, and if society is unpleasant because of crime, corruption, or other problems, then many of us will become rebellious and want to get involved with the selection of government officials.

Another way to rephrase this concept is that rebellion is a sign of incompetent management. When employees become rebellious, the management of the business should not try to stop the rebellion with violence. Rather, they should take a critical look at their policies and figure out what is causing the anger. In a communist nation, when the citizens try to escape, the communist leaders react by putting a wall around the nation and trying to force everybody to remain inside, but they should be asking themselves why people want to escape. When citizens try to escape from a nation, it is an insult to the government, but the communist leaders are apparently too stupid to understand this.

If we ignore mental disorders, rebellion is a sign of bad management. Therefore, instead of worrying about whether the people will rebel if they are not allowed to vote, we should instead change our attitude towards rebellion. If some citizens show signs of anger or rebellion, we should immediately take a critical look at the nation and try to figure out what is causing people to become annoyed. We should try to correct the problem by changing society before a lot of people are so angry that they are disrupting society.

This is a very simple concept, but it is not natural for animals. Our natural reaction to all types of problems is anger or fear. We either want to stop the rebellion with violence, or we want to run away and hide from it. We must learn to control our emotions and react to problems by analyzing them and experimenting with solutions.

Another way to rephrase these concepts is that it is in everybody's best interest that we create the best government possible because the better the government is, the less rebellion there will be. No matter how you look at modern society, our best option is to do what is best for society, not what is best for our own emotions. We are a team in this modern world, not individuals. We have to think of what is best for the team.

Our emotions will convince us that life is best when we pursue our selfish desires, but our emotions are wrong in this modern world. For example, consider the issue of finding a wife. A man's emotions want him to find a wife with no regard to whether other men find a wife, but in this modern world, it is better for us to help everybody find friends and a spouse.

It might help you to understand that concept if you consider food. In prehistoric times, food was scarce, so it made sense for people to struggle to feed themselves with no regard to anybody else. In our era, we can produce so much food that it would be idiotic for people to fight for the food. Today it is better that we provide everybody with a proper diet so that they are in good physical health.

Likewise, it is better that we help everybody be in good "emotional health", such as by helping people to find friends, activities, and a spouse. We no longer benefit by fighting for what used to be scarce resources. None of our essential items are scarce today. There is plenty of food, houses, spouses, friends, and activities for everybody. It is now in our best interest to help everybody become a happy, productive member of the team.

Likewise, our emotions want us to fight for jobs, not care whether other people have jobs, or care whether other people enjoy their jobs. However, in this modern world, it is in our best interest to help everybody find a job that they enjoy. We should also help people find activities they enjoy. We don't benefit by living in a society in which people are miserable, envious, lonely, or bitter. We will not always be able to find jobs that we enjoy because there are so many tasks that nobody cares for, but our attitude should be to help everybody, not fight with them.

So far I have been ignoring the issue of mental illness. In the real world, some of the rebellion is due to mental illness. There are some people who will rebel against situations that nobody else would complain about. There are some people who are virtually impossible to please. No matter how much money they have, it is not enough. No matter how nicely we treat them, we are too critical and selfish. No matter how pleasant their job and working conditions are, the job is miserable and they are mistreated, unappreciated, and abused.

Some children have nice family lives, but because of their mental problems, they are angry, rebellious, and troublesome. Likewise, there are some women who are going to whine about their husbands regardless of how their husbands treat them.

When a child becomes rebellious, we have to pass judgment on whether the child has a problem, or whether his parents have a problem. Likewise, when an adult becomes rebellious, we have to pass judgment on whether he has a mental problem, or if society should be altered.

The people we classify as mentally defective need to be dealt with in some manner, such as told to shut up, prohibited from reproducing, or evicted from society.

Allowing the government to classify us as mentally defective for being rebellious might seem to be giving the government the authority to classify their critics as mentally ill and remove them from society. However, if we remove the secrecy that governments operate with today, then they would not be able to remove anybody without posting a document on the Internet that explains who they are removing, and why. This allows us to verify that they are doing a job properly. Of course, this requires people who occasionally participate in society and watch what the government officials are doing.

The "photo finish" problem

The "photo finish" problem is another way of looking at the problem I mentioned earlier about people on the "borderline". When selecting government officials, scientists, doctors, dentists, carpenters, teachers, and other people, we want to find people who are "the best", but it is not possible to say who is "the best". We cannot even say who are the best in physical qualities that can be accurately measured.

For example, if we measure everybody's ability to run 100 meters, we will find that one person is clearly first, and another person is clearly second, but the further back we go, the more similar the people become. There will be a lot of people in the number 10 position, and even more in the number 100 position.

To add to the problem, if we run the race again on another day, we will find that the order of those people has changed slightly. To further complicate the issue, if we run a race that is longer or shorter, the order will change again.

We cannot seriously say who among us are the "best runners". All we can do is pick a group of people that are among the best, and ignore the people who whine that they should have been included in that category.

This concept applies to pilots, government leaders, mechanics, and scientists. We have to become accustomed to passing judgment on people's abilities, and telling the people who whine about it to shut up.

This concept must be applied to voters, also. We have to pass judgment on who among us qualifies as a voter, and we have to tell the people who don't qualify to shut up.

We also have to pass judgment on who can reproduce, who is mentally ill, and who needs to be evicted. It is not easy to make these decisions, but we can do so. Actually, we must make these decisions. If we don't make these decisions, then society will continue to degrade.