It was in January 2002 that I realized that the World Trade Center towers had been demolished with explosives, and I began sending email messages to scientists, professors, and other people to tell them to look into the 9/11 attack and expose the lies. Nobody did anything, so I began trying to inform the public.

More than 16 years has passed, and during that time I discovered that we were also lied to about many other events, such as the Apollo moon landing, the Holocaust, and the attack on the USS Liberty.

Eventually I came to the conclusion that an international crime network that is dominated by Jews has infiltrated most of the world's governments, media companies, schools, and businesses, and that they fooled, intimidated, threatened, and bribed a lot of people into joining their "New World Order".

Their methods for recruiting members and getting control of our nations can be seen in television programs, such as The Invaders, and movies, such as They Live, although the Jews are depicted as aliens from another planet.

Millions of people have come to similar conclusions as me, but the Jewish crime network is still in control of the world, and I continue to encounter people who believe that 19 Muslims were responsible for the 9/11 attack, and that NASA put men on the moon six times.

Even more shocking, a lot of people suspect that we have been lied to, but they don't care enough to look into the issue, help us expose the lies, or stop the crime network. They are like animals that can be beaten. I suspect that their apathy is one of the reasons that the crime network has been able to recruit members. Specifically, some of the people who were trying to stop the crime network became so frustrated and disappointed with the public that they came to the conclusion that they should join the New World Order rather than waste their time trying to help the apathetic sheeple.

Anyway, none of you provide me with feedback, (other than people who want to manipulate me, of course), so I don't know what issues you want me to write about or clarify, or what sort of questions you have, or what issues you disagree with.

Recently I got frustrated watching the demonstrations and arguments by liberals and conservatives over guns, so I created this document in the hope that maybe this will entice a few of you into spreading this information and trying to put an end to the stupid protests and arguments over the Second Amendment.

If we can help the sheeple realize that they are wasting their time with their stupid arguments and protests, that might dampen their arrogance enough to encourage at least some of them to look into the "crazy conspiracy theories", and join us in improving the world. (I had planned to keep this document brief, but the frequent news articles about these arguments repeatedly stimulated me into adding more material.)

Although many of the sentences and phrases in the U.S. Constitution are confusing, as I described in more detail here, it does not require much intelligence or education to realize that:

1) The Second Amendment provides the right to a gun only to teams of security personnel.

2) The Constitution doesn't prohibit the ordinary citizens from owning guns, but it doesn't provide citizens with the right to own a gun, either.

3) The Second Amendment provides militias with the right to guns only for the security of the nation, not for sports or entertainment. It does not even provide individual citizens with the right to own a gun to protect their home or family, or for hunting animals or killing rats.

By not specifying whether citizens are allowed to have guns, the authors of the Constitution allowed future generations, and each city and state, to make such decisions for themselves. Therefore, we should discuss the issue rather than argue over whether the Second Amendment provides us with such rights. Some of the topics to discuss are:

Should citizens be allowed to use guns for their personal entertainment, such as shooting at paper targets, television sets (the photo below), watermelons, or clay pigeons in their backyards? Or should they be restricted to using guns in supervised sports competitions? Should they be allowed to have guns for the protection of their home and family against criminals or corrupt governments?

If we decided that citizens can own guns, what minimum age should a person be in order to own a gun? Should citizens have to pass training courses or get gun licenses before they can have a gun? Can people have guns if they have been convicted of crimes? Should citizens have access to explosive or hollow point bullets? Should they be allowed to have bullets that are made of lead, or should they be restricted to bullets made from iron, rubber, or plastic? Should they be allowed to use guns that use gunpowder? Or should they be restricted to guns that use compressed air? Should citizens be allowed to have automatic rifles or short-barrel shotguns? Should cities or states be allowed to have different rules for guns, or should every citizen follow the same rules?

In 1939 the Supreme Court decided that Congress could outlaw short-barreled shotguns. When the NRA leaders responded that the law was interfering with our Second Amendment rights, Justice Warren Burger accused them of perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

Burger had the courage to reprimand citizens for promoting the false information that the Second Amendment gave every citizen the right to a short-barreled shotgun, but he didn't have the authority to stop the NRA from repeatedly promoting that false theory. The end result is that we regularly hear the NRA insist that the Second Amendment gives every American citizen the right to own any type of gun he desires, and in any quantity, and for any purpose. And we regularly hear the NRA whining that the government is trying to take away our Second Amendment rights.

The NRA is giving themselves a bad image

Why is the NRA constantly promoting a false theory? I don't know, but four possible reasons are that the NRA leadership is:

1) So stupid that they cannot understand the Second Amendment.
2) Ignorant, because they never bothered to read the Second Amendment.
3) Liars who realize the Second Amendment does not provide citizens with the right to guns, but they want a gun, so they lie about the issue.
4) So unconcerned with reality that they interpret the Second Amendment in the manner that they want it to be, rather than try to understand it. In other words, they are behaving like religious fanatics who disregard science and create a fantasy world for themselves in which they believe whatever they please, such as that a wonderful God will forgive them every time they commit a crime.

If the NRA is promoting that false theory because of any of those four reasons, they should be disqualified from leadership positions — and prohibited from owning a gun — because:

1) A leader who is too stupid to understand the Second Amendment cannot provide us with intelligent analyses of our laws, and is probably too stupid to handle, store, and use a gun properly.

2) A leader who will not bother to read the Second Amendment, which is only one sentence, is not going to spend time reading other people's opinions, or educating himself about anything. Furthermore, he is not likely to be interested in learning how to handle, store, or use a gun properly because that requires reading a lot more than one sentence.

3) If a leader is going to lie to us about the Second Amendment, he is likely to lie about a lot of other things, and may be willing to commit more serious crimes, also.

4) If a leader prefers a fantasy world rather than reality, his guidance will be worthless or detrimental.

Ideally, the leaders of the NRA would be more educated and intelligent than their members, and they would provide intelligent analyses of the Second Amendment, and other issues, and they would provide their members with intelligent guidance.

How is it possible that the leaders of the NRA can be so disgusting? It is because the U.S. Constitution doesn't provide any checks and balances for the leadership of organizations. The members of an organization are responsible for providing themselves with leadership, but the members of the NRA are just like the voters. Specifically, they want submissive leaders who tell them what they want to hear, not leaders who provide them with guidance and constructive criticism.

When a large business allows its employees to form a smaller organization within the business, such as a company bowling team, or a team to arrange for a Christmas party, the management doesn't let that group of employees do or say whatever they please. Rather, the management will occasionally review their activities and pass judgment on whether the team is beneficial to the company. If they decide that the team is worthless or detrimental, they will replace the leadership or terminate the group.

Business executives will do almost anything their customers ask for, but they will not do whatever they employees ask for. Rather, the executives provide their employees with intelligent guidance and supervision.

By comparison, the U.S. Constitution allows us to create any type of organization we please, and none of the organizations are held accountable for what they do, and none of our government officials have the authority to replace the management or terminate the organization.

As a result, there are a wide variety of organizations in the USA that are abusive, deceptive, and manipulative. The NRA, for example, is spreading false information about the Second Amendment, and there are various Jewish groups, such as the ADL and the Southern Poverty Law Center, that are trying to manipulate our laws and attitudes. There are also a variety of religions that are trying to manipulate our holiday celebrations, covering up pedophilia, and pressuring their members into donating money on a regular basis.

The leadership of the NRA should be replaced, but the members are not going to replace them for the simple reason that they joined the NRA because they like what the leadership is doing and saying. Expecting the NRA members to give themselves better leadership is as silly as expecting the people who join a nudist colony to complain about the naked people.

The people who joined the NRA were attracted to the lies that the NRA leaders were promoting, so they are not going to demand that the NRA leadership be replaced with people who interpret the Second Amendment correctly.

The leaders of businesses, religions, charities, think tanks, and other organizations are under competitive pressure, but the pressure is not to provide intelligent guidance, or contribute something of value to society, or lead us in experiments to improve our culture.

Rather, in our free enterprise system, all of the organizations are under pressure to acquire money. They usually get money by selling products, begging for donations, or collecting membership fees. Most of them are making money by pandering to the public. The end result is that our society is dominated by people who excel at titillating the public, rather than at bringing improvements to society.

The leaders of our organizations should not be under pressure to make money. The competitive pressure that they feel should be to bring improvements to society. Instead of boasting about sales, profits, memberships, or donations, they should boast about their achievements in improving our schools, social activities, apartment buildings, factories, parks, health care, flood prevention systems, and transportation systems.

As I've described in other documents, my suggestion is to create some new cities, and give them the type of government system that a large business would use. Specifically, the leaders of the city would have control over everything, just like the leaders of a business control every aspect of their organization. The government officials would have control of, and responsibility for, all of the factories, social activities, sports groups, schools, restaurants, apartment buildings, and farms.

To the people living in the city, it would feel as if they were employees of a business that is so large and wealthy that it can afford to provide its employees with free homes, restaurants, recreational facilities, and other services.

In that type of city, the government would be able to determine which products are produced, and which services are offered. The government would have the authority to replace the leadership of an organization, and to dissolve an organization. However, the government would not be a group of submissive servants who pander to the public. Rather, the government officials would make decisions according to what would be best for the city.

Millions of people are mimicking the NRA's false claim that the Second Amendment gives us the right to have guns. How many of those people realize that they are mimicking a false claim? And how many are ignorant about the Second Amendment, and are mimicking that false claim simply because of their emotional craving to follow their leader without questioning why?

Most people, especially the people who refer to themselves as "conservatives", have such a strong craving to follow their leader that it is difficult to figure out which of them has a properly functioning brain.

If the conservatives would select respectable people for leadership positions, then they would follow leaders who give them sensible advice and guidance, thereby causing them to be a beneficial, impressive, and productive group of people.

Unfortunately, neither conservatives nor liberals look for leaders who can provide intelligent analyses, constructive criticism, or guidance. As with liberals, the conservatives prefer to follow somebody who makes them feel good. Therefore, since they are emotionally titillated by what the NRA says, and since they are irritated by what Justice Burger says, millions of conservatives want to follow the false theory promoted by the NRA.

The NRA is an example of why democracies don't work well, and why it is idiotic to have leaders who are submissive servants. To summarize it:

• Since the NRA depends upon its members for financial support, the NRA leadership wants to please their members, so they say whatever the members want to hear. In other words, the leaders are following their members, rather than providing leadership.

• When the NRA members follow their leaders, they are following leaders who are following them.

• The end result is that there is no leadership in the NRA. The people create a situation that is analogous to a group of sheep in a circle who are following one another (in the photo).

This idiotic situation — an organization in which the leaders and members are following one another — is a problem with all organizations that people join for a leisure activity, rather than join because they need to make money.

Furthermore, the U.S. Constitution encourages this idiotic situation by creating a submissive government, and the free enterprise system causes businesses to pander to the public, which is almost as stupid as pandering to their own employees.

To complicate the issue of leadership, when the members of an organization want their leaders to be submissive servants, they make it easy for criminals to take control of the organization. The reason is because when the members are looking for a submissive servant, rather than a leader, even a mentally disturbed criminal can be a submissive servant, thereby fooling the members into letting him get into a leadership position.

Once the criminals are in positions of leadership, they can help their friends get into positions of importance, and they can get rid of the honest people. Then they can exploit the organization for money or other benefits, and they can also slowly change the organization.

This is also happening with democracies, such as America. The voters are easily fooled into electing deceptive, dishonest candidates who titillate the voters with praise, compliments, and promises, but who are working for crime networks. Anybody, even an uneducated, mentally disturbed criminal, can tell the voters what they want to hear. It doesn't require any talent to pander to voters. Therefore, it is easy for criminals to appeal to the voters who are looking for a submissive representative.

If the voters were to instead demand leadership, then they would make it difficult for criminals to be elected because the voters would analyze the candidates to see which of them provides the most intelligent analyses, has the most useful constructive criticism, and the most intelligent suggestions for improvements. The voters would also analyze the past performance of the candidates and look for leadership abilities in their previous jobs.

The criminals and incompetent people would not have the talent necessary to pass those analyses. Only people with real leadership abilities would survive that type of analysis.

The American government officials are supposed to be submissive servants of the voter, not leaders. Therefore, the candidates in an American political contest are not in a competitive battle to show their leadership abilities. Rather, they are in a contest to determine who is better at promising the voters whatever they want; praising the voters; telling the voters whatever they want to hear; and blaming the nation's problems on some other group of people or some foreign nation.

No intelligence, talent, or previous achievements are necessary to win that type of contest. This allows people to win a political contest even if they have mental disorders, have been a failure in their life, or are blackmailed puppets of a crime network.

Actually, that type of contest favors the people who are the most deceptive, selfish, and inconsiderate. The reason is because the honest, responsible people are not going to want to lie to the voters, and so they will not be as successful in telling voters what they want to hear, or giving praise to the voters, or blaming the nation's problems on other people. Honesty does not help in a contest in which the candidates have to compete to please a group of ignorant voters who want a submissive servant.

These concepts apply to organizations of all sizes, including two people, specifically, a man and woman. In other words, submissive leadership is detrimental even in a marriage.

During prehistoric times, the women were dependent upon men for food and protection, and that caused the teenage girls to want to get married quickly. An unmarried adult woman in that era would suffer. The prehistoric men would pamper their wives and daughters with food and gifts, and treat them like Queens, but the men were leaders who provided guidance for their wives and daughters.

During the past century, however, technology has brought a very significant change to our social environment. Specifically, women are no longer dependent upon men. Women today can now acquire plenty of food, clothing, and other material items simply by getting a job, and they don't have to worry about being protected from wolves or neighboring tribes, and since we are no longer nomadic, a single woman doesn't have to worry about making a temporary home to sleep in at night.

These changes have reduced the pressure on teenage girls to quickly find a husband. Furthermore, birth control has allowed women to get into relationships without committing to marriage.

These changes in our social environment have caused women to be less concerned about finding a husband. The men, however, continue to have the same cravings for women that our prehistoric ancestors had. Actually, we probably have more of a craving for women today because modern technology is allowing the women to look much prettier, thereby stimulating our emotions even more. To make our situation even worse, many businesses are trying to increase their sales by stimulating men with unusually pretty women. Therefore, men are being sexually stimulated every day by businesses, further increasing our desire for a woman.

The end result is that the men today have abnormally intense cravings for women, but the women have less of a desire for a husband than the prehistoric women. This results in the men today becoming more submissive. Instead of providing guidance and leadership, the men are pandering to the women.

Men should provide leadership to women, not pander to them.

The men today who are afraid to oppose feminism are encouraging feminism by remaining silent about the issue. Even worse are the men who are willing to lie to the women, such as agreeing with the women that it is wonderful that women are finally liberating themselves from thousands of years of abuse and sexism.

Those men are encouraging women to believe a feminist fantasy, rather than push the women into accepting reality. They are making our situation worse by pandering to the women.

Men and women are not going to improve our relationships by telling one another what we want to hear. We will improve our relationships when we study humans, learn about ourselves, and use that knowledge to figure out how to provide ourselves with a more appropriate social environment.

Unfortunately, if only one of us stands up to the feminists, we are going to be attacked. We need help!

Earlier in this document I gave four possible reasons as to why the NRA leaders are promoting a false theory, and #4 (withdrawing into a fantasy world), seems to be one of the most common reasons that people are misinterpreting the Second Amendment.

As I have mentioned in other documents, animal and human minds don't care about reality. Instead, we prefer to do and believe whatever titillates our emotions. Unless we have a lot of self-control, our desire for emotional titillation will cause us to interpret the world in the manner that is the most emotionally pleasing. We will believe whatever makes us feel good, and disregard or deny whatever we don't like, even if it is obvious that we are supporting a false theory.

For example, a person who wants a gun will be emotionally attracted to an NRA official who tells him that the Second Amendment gives him a right to a gun, and he will be irritated when Justice Warren Burger responds that the NRA official is perpetrating a fraud by making such a claim. If that person doesn't have much self-control, he will follow the NRA official, who makes him feel good, rather than Justice Burger, who upsets him.

“Such adorable children! Here, have some candy.”

What is the difference between:

• A child who follows a pedophile who offers candy.
• An adult who follows an NRA official who is making a false claim about the Constitution?

Both the child and the adult are behaving like stupid animals who follow whoever titillates them, and this can result in both of them suffering in the long run.

A person who has a low level of self-control, or who is ignorant about how his emotions try to influence his decisions, may believe a theory that is obviously idiotic if that theory is emotionally appealing to him. For some examples of stupid theories that are very popular around the world:

• Each of us has a strong emotional craving to be at the top of the social hierarchy, so we are attracted to the concept that we are an important person who is good looking, talented, intelligent, and desirable. We are upset by the concept that we have undesirable characteristics. The less control we have over our emotional cravings, the more strongly we will ignore or deny our undesirable characteristics, and exaggerate our talents and achievements, resulting in what we refer to as arrogance, vanity, pride, or conceit.

• Our emotions are attracted to the concept that there is a loving God who will forgive us every time we misbehave. As a result, millions of people believe in that concept simply because it makes them feel good, not because they have supporting evidence for it.

• Our emotions are attracted to the concept that we will be transported to a wonderful heaven when we die. Our emotions are repelled at the thought that our life is completely finished when we die, and that we will decompose just like the animals.

In order to reach your intellectual potential, you need to:

1) Be aware that your emotions try to influence your decisions.
2) Have enough self-control to suppress or ignore your emotions.

Many of the people who believe in an idiotic theory have the intelligence necessary to realize that they are supporting a stupid theory, but they either don't have enough self-control to believe a more sensible theory, or they don't make any attempt to control their emotions because they are so ignorant about the human mind that they don't realize that our emotions try to influence our decisions.

Our emotions push us into interpreting the world in the manner that we want it to be, rather than try to understand what it really is. I mentioned this characteristic years ago when I pointed out that everybody who reads a religious document tends to ignore the aspects of the document that they don't like, and interpret the other sections in whatever manner they please. This causes each person to develop a slightly different variation of the religion. Over many centuries, the slight variations build up to create hundreds of variations of Christianity, Judaism, and other religions.

Even if you are not interested in religion, you are likely to behave in that same manner. For example, if a person wants to own a gun, then he is likely to interpret the Second Amendment as giving him a right to a gun. If he does not want people to have guns, then he is likely to interpret the amendment as restricting guns to the police and military.

In addition to believing what we want to believe, there are some characteristics about us that we ought to be aware of because they can cause us to misinterpret reality. One of those characteristics is that our brains are imperfect in regards to analyzing the information from our ears, eyes, and other senses.

In the patterns below, for example, a computer with a camera would be able to correctly deduce that the seven gray lines in the pattern along the left are parallel to one another, and that the seven diagonal lines in the pattern along the right are also parallel, but to a human mind, they are not parallel.

We cannot trust what we see. We cannot use our eyes as scientific instruments. The problem is not with our eyes, however. It is with our brain.

We have a monkey's brain that evolved to survive a battle for life. Our brain was not designed to understand the universe, develop an accurate view of reality, or even enjoy life.

If you believe that we were created by a loving God, then you will assume that we are supposed to enjoy life, and that creates the dilemma of explaining why a loving God would cause so many humans to suffer. Why are there so many retarded people, Siamese twins, and people with multiple sclerosis? Why are so many people born with cleft palates, blindness, tiny penises, crooked teeth, and defective livers? Why are so many people suffering from such mental disorders as depression, hallucinations, schizophrenia, shyness, and violent tantrums?

Religious people promote the theory that God created men and women to form marriages and raise children, so why are there so many men and women who want to be homosexual, or who feel as if they have the body of the wrong sex, or who have a mixture of both male and female sexual organs?
Religious people have no explanation for the suffering of the human race, but if you can accept the evidence that humans are just monkeys, then it all makes sense; specifically, animals were not designed to enjoy life. We were designed only to survive long enough to successfully reproduce. Whether we enjoy life is irrelevant as far as nature is concerned. I will give a few examples to explain this concept.

We were not designed to enjoy food

The reason animals eat is to fuel their bodies, not to enjoy their meals. When animals find food, they do not enjoy the food. Rather, they are in a competitive battle for food, so they swallow large chunks of food rapidly. They do not spend time enjoying the flavor.

Both humans and animals like the taste of certain foods, but the emotional pleasure we receive from food is not intended to allow us to enjoy our meals. Rather, that pleasure evolved only to cause us to eat the foods that are nutritious to our species, and avoid the foods that are inappropriate to us.

Whether we enjoy food depends on our decisions. We have the option of swallowing large chunks of food rapidly, like an animal, but we also have the option of eating at a slow pace and enjoying the food.

Some bodybuilders eat more food than they actually want, thereby requiring themselves to force themselves to eat. They are not always enjoying their meals. Many of their meals are a chore, like refueling an airplane.

We also have the option of arranging our food in a visually attractive manner, and we have the option of getting together with other people so that we can enjoy people and food at the same time. We also have the option of getting together with people only for drinks, such as coffee, beer, or orange juice. When we are only drinking something, it is easier for us to also listen to music, watch people dance, or watch a recreational event, thereby providing us with lots of entertainment opportunities.

Whether you and other people enjoy your meals depends upon your decisions. It depends upon your mental qualities, and your attitude towards life. We have virtually unlimited options with food, so if we have the courage to explore our options, we will discover a lot of options that we enjoy.

For example, in my documents I suggest we design cities so that restaurants are scattered among gardens and parks so that they are in beautiful, quiet settings, and that the city provide us with meals for free. To reduce boredom, the restaurants would have different decorations and styles of furniture, and some would be indoors and others would be outside.

In cold and rainy climates, some restaurants would be enclosed in glass, like the one below.

I think that type of city will increase our enjoyment of meals because it will be more relaxing to eat when we don't have to be concerned about money, credit cards, or tips, and when we are not bothered by the sight, sound, and fumes of automobiles and asphalt roads.

I also recommend stopping the practice of setting aside the tops of buildings for penthouses for wealthy people and use them for community property, such as social clubs and restaurants. This would give everybody the opportunity to eat while looking out at the city, or while watching the rain, lightning, snowstorms, or moon.

Furthermore, since the restaurants would not be designed for profit, there would be plenty of tables for just one person to enjoy a meal by himself, as well as tables for two or three people.

I also recommend reducing the cooking temperatures for a lot of our foods in order to improve the flavor, and to reduce the air pollution caused from smoke and fumes, and to reduce the mess that must be cleaned up afterwards. I also suggest experimenting with plastic spoons and forks in order to reduce noise, and eliminate the sensation of metal.

We have a tremendous number of options in regards to providing ourselves with meals, and in designing restaurants, cities, and eating utensils. If we would start the experiments, we would undoubtedly discover that there are lots of ways to increase our enjoyment of meals that nobody has yet thought of.

However, it should be noted that many of our options require self-control, thinking, experimenting, working in a team for the benefit of the group, and cooperating with other people. Animals do not have the intellectual or emotional ability to explore their options with food, and humans who are incredibly stupid, or who have almost no self-control, will also be unable to explore their options. By comparison, the more advanced a person's brain is, the more options he can choose from.

The options that I have suggested may require mental qualities that most people do not have. For example, I suggest that the city provide food, homes, and material wealth for free, but how many people can handle that environment? For example, how many people will have enough motivation to do a job properly when they can get whatever they want for free?

When people today are provided with free food, such as on some cruise ships, smorgasbords, weddings, and parties, some people are very wasteful, and some people overeat, just like stupid animals. And when some people have free access to cameras, tools, and other material items, they show no interest in taking care of the items, or even using them properly.

We have a lot of options in our life, but they require people who have mental abilities above that of an animal. Our options require us to exert self-control, think, explore the unknown, and experiment with our lives. We also have to be able to suppress our selfish cravings enough so that we can join a team and work together for goals that are beneficial to the entire group.

Our most advanced options require the most advanced mental abilities. For example, in order for a city to be successful in offering free food, housing, and material wealth, we need people who are much more advanced than animal because it requires people to be able to avoid wasting and abusing the food and material items, and who will work properly at jobs even when there is no financial pressure for them to work. What percentage of the human population is advanced enough to make that type of city a success?

We were not designed to enjoy sex or marriage, either.

If you can understand that we were not intended to enjoy food, and that we need advanced mental qualities in order to do so, it might be easier for you to understand how the same concept applies to other issues, such as sex and marriage.

Both men and women have a desire for sex, but it is not because a loving God wants us to enjoy it. Rather, these cravings are intended only to push us into reproducing. Further evidence that we were not intended to enjoy sex is that men and women have incompatible sexual cravings. For example, men want sex much more than women, and another problem is that men don't need women to do anything in particular to get us in the mood for sex, whereas women tend to require a lot more foreplay and effort from the man. If a loving God had designed us, he would have made our sexual cravings compatible, rather than antagonistic.

The incompatibilities between men and women make sense if you agree that our enjoyment of sex is only to cause males and females to reproduce. Nature does not care whether we truly enjoy it.

By making the females so difficult to get in the mood for sex, the males have to prove they have a lot of stamina and physical energy, and a strong interest in the female. Another advantage to making females less interested in sex is that it reduces venereal diseases and infidelity.

Male and female animals have an extremely crude relationship. The males occasionally engage in a crude sex act, but most of the time the male and female animals are taking care of their children, not doing things together or enjoying one another. Male and female animals don't have conversations, and they don't get together for leisure activities or socializing. They don't even eat together. There are moments when they are coincidentally eating at the same time, but they are not enjoying a meal together. Rather, each is independently swallowing chunks of food as rapidly as possible.

In order for men and women to truly enjoy sex and a relationship, they need qualities beyond that of an animal. They need to understand their own emotional feelings, and those of the opposite sex, and they need enough self-control and intelligence to adjust their behavior to make it more compatible with that of their spouse.

We should learn as much as possible about the differences between men and women so that we can use that knowledge to design a social environment that fits what we truly are rather than what we like to think we are. Businesses need that knowledge to create a working environment for women that is more appropriate for them. Individual men and women also need that knowledge so that each of us can adjust our decisions and behavior so that we can form a stable relationship with the opposite sex.

Unfortunately, it is not yet possible for any society to learn about the differences between men and women because there are so many people who have tantrums when somebody says there is a difference between us. A tremendous number of people insist that men and women are unisex creatures, and that those of us who believe otherwise are a sexist, misogynist, bigot, or chauvinist. There are an even larger number of people who want to prohibit schools from teaching children about sex, marriage, and related issues.

To aggravate the situation, most parents are too embarrassed or ignorant to teach their children about these issues, and most women are too inhibited to talk to their husband about sex issues. Finally, a lot of people, probably most, are simply too dumb and/or ignorant to have a sensible conversation about their emotional feelings, sex, marriage, and relationships.

The end result is that children today are not learning much about men and women, relationships, or sex. Instead, they are becoming confused adults who pick up bits and pieces of unrealistic and conflicting attitudes and expectations about marriage and sex, and this results in a lot of frustration, arguments, and divorce.

I also believe that the relationships between men and women are being harmed by the people in the media who frequently produce television programs, advertisements, and movies that stimulate men with sexual images; show men and women in unrealistic relationships; and make women seem more sexually active than they actually are. There are also some television programs that show men as incompetent, crude nitwits that need a wife or mother to take care of them.

The media is promoting a distorted view of men, women, marriage, sex, weddings, and relationships, and this can cause children to develop unrealistic expectations of life, which can result in them wasting years of their life. The media is also putting a lot of subliminal sexual messages in advertisements and television programs.

We should also stop tolerating subliminal sexual messages, such as the Disney cartoon (left) in which Jessica Rabbit is showing her crotch, and the bears in the billboard that is (or was) at this location in Washington state.

The triangular logo in the billboard above looks like a modified version of a pedophile symbol. If you are unfamiliar with pedophile symbols, I show two of them here.

In order for men and women to improve their relationships and marriages, we need to put into leadership positions men who have the ability to stand up to the feminists and provide women and children with intelligent guidance. We need men who can publicly state that a woman's mind evolved for raising children and socializing, not for being a leader, explorer, or engineer.

Women, as a group, are less intelligent than men, and the men who cannot see that should be classified as too stupid to be put into a leadership position. The men who can see it, but cannot admit to it in public, should be classified as too emotionally weak for a leadership position.

Women are also less adventurous and have a stronger desire to follow a crowd of people. Men need to understand women enough to provide their wives and daughters with intelligent guidance, rather than do what they are doing today, which is to pander to their feminist fantasies.

In our world today, I can understand why men are afraid to publicly admit that men and women are different. Specifically, those of us who admit to it will be standing by ourselves, and we will be attacked by lots of women, and we will be unlikely to attract a wife. However, if we had leaders who would admit to this, then the men would not be afraid to admit to it.

We were not designed to enjoy sports or recreation

These concepts also apply to the issue of sports and recreational activities. Animals could be described as having recreational events, such as when puppies and kittens chase each other, but their recreational events are extremely crude. Sometimes they are following their emotional cravings to hunt, and other times they are following their cravings to fight competitors and predators.

If humans do not exert self-control, our recreational events will be as crude as those of the animals. Specifically, the events will be intended only to titillate our cravings to hunt or fight. Perhaps they would resemble the "fight clubs", but with less, if any, supervision.

By comparison, if we exert some self-control, then instead of merely titillating our emotional cravings with simulated hunts and fights, we can design recreational activities that have rules to make them safe, and which provide some benefit to us, such as exercise or socializing. We can also design some recreational activities to get us outside so that we can enjoy the trees, flowers, sunshine, and cloud formations, and we can design some recreational activities for the evening so that we can enjoy the moon, stars, and whatever type of lighting displays we want to put in our city.

If we develop a better crime policy and reduce crime to extremely low levels, then we don't need to fill the city with bright security lights. We can use lights for decorative purposes instead. We could put decorative lights on buildings, along footpaths, and in swimming pools, such as the pool in the photo below. This will make the nighttime social and recreational activities more interesting.

We are currently wasting our resources and artistic talent by providing wealthy people with small but decorative swimming pools, patios, and gardens. My recommendation is to put our resources and labor into community property rather than personal property. A "City of Castles" would consist of clusters of tall apartment buildings and office buildings that are surrounded by decorative swimming pools, patios, gardens, foot paths, bicycle paths, social clubs, recreational areas, restaurants, and parks that everybody would have free access to simply by taking an elevator ride to the ground floor.

We have a lot of options in regards to sports and recreational activities, and in the decorations and design of our city. However, all of our options require us to exert self-control, get together with other people, discuss our options, and experiment with our options. We must be able to work together in a team, control our selfish cravings, and do what we agree is best for the group. The more advanced our minds are, the more options we have to choose from. Conversely, the less control we exert over ourselves, the more similar to an animal we will be, and the fewer options we have for our cities.

Our cities today are not much more advanced than what the birds did in the photo to the right. Each of us is focusing on building a home for ourselves with no regard for what other people are doing. The end result is a city that is a chaotic, unplanned jumble of homes of different sizes, qualities, and styles, and an ugly mixture of roads, telephone poles, parking lots, and garbage dumps. It also results in a city that occasionally has problems with flooding and overcrowding,

Most of the people who have risen to leadership positions have shown no interest in getting together to plan and organize our cities, or do what is best for all of us as a group. Rather, most of our leaders, and most of the citizens, are still behaving like selfish animals who fight over land and material wealth. Our leaders are interested in providing themselves with giant mansions rather than experimenting with cities that we can all enjoy.

In order for us to create some truly wonderful cities, we need a different group of people in control of society. The people who rise to the top positions today did not get to those top positions because they excelled in finding improvements to society. Rather, they excelled in making money, or pandering to voters, or some other selfish and/or dishonest activity. We need leaders who excel at providing us with intelligent analyses and guidance, and who have the courage to lead us into experiments to create a better society for all of us.

We also need a better understanding of ourselves so that we can design a city that will give us what we need, rather than what our crude emotions want. That requires us to understand our true qualities rather than follow some religious fantasy that we are a creation of a loving god, and rather than follow some liberal fantasy that our mind is like a piece of clay that molds itself to the environment.

We must face the evidence that our minds are imperfect monkey brains, not flawless computers. Optical illusions show us that our brains accidentally distort visual information, but our brains also deliberately distort some information from our ears, eyes, nose, and other senses in order to help us survive. For example, our brain fills in the "blind spot" of our visual image. This makes the image more appropriate for us, but it gives us an inaccurate view of the world. If a telescope, microscope, or camera were to fill in a section of its image, it would be regarded as "defective".

Our brain and/or nose modifies odor information to an even greater extent. Specifically, after we smell a particular odor, our brain and/or nose will somehow suppress that particular odor so that we can sense the other odors.

For example, I like the odor of freshly ground coffee (except for the extremely roasted coffess that have a burnt odor), but if I try to smell the coffee again within a few seconds, the odor is noticeably less intense. Either the sensory organs in my nose are refusing to send the information to my brain, or my brain is ignoring it on the grounds that I just smelled that particular odor, and my brain wants to check for other odors. I have to wait quite a while before the coffee has a strong scent again.

Our sense of smell was not designed to give us an accurate view of the world. It was designed for our survival. As a result, it is difficult to use humans in taste and smell tests. A scientific instrument will give the same results every time, but a human nose and brain will not.


Yanny or Laurel?

Recently somebody posted this particular sound pattern on the Internet that shows that our brain cannot accurately interpret auditory information, either. This sound could be described as an "audio illusion". Some people hear "laurel", but others hear "yanny". I thought it sounded more like "yammy", but regardless, how is it possible for different people to interpret the same sound in such a different manner?

The answer is that it is similar to being near a young girl who has a high-pitched voice, and an adult man who has a low pitched voice. When both of them are speaking at the same time, your ears will hear a mixture of both voices, which would create an audio signal that is undecipherable if both of them had exactly the same pitch and volume level.

However, since their voices are at different frequencies, and since the human brain seems to have a crude ability to filter audio, if we focus on the high pitch of the girl, we will be able to hear what she is saying, and if we focus on the low pitch of the man, we can hear what he is saying.

In that audio clip, the "yanny" sound is at a high pitch, and it seems to be at a low volume level, whereas "laurel" seems to cover the entire frequency range, and it seems to be at a higher volume level. Because "yanny" is at a high frequency, people who have trouble hearing high frequencies – either because of infections, listening to music too loud, or genetic differences in their ears – will have trouble hearing the high-pitched "yanny", so they will hear "laurel".

I heard "Laurel" only after I opened the audio file in an audio editor (I used Audacity, which is free here), and then used the low-pass filter to suppress the high frequencies. I had to set the Cutoff frequency to between 1000 to 1500 hertz, and the Rolloff level to at least 6 decibels, as in the image to the right.

To make the situation more interesting and confusing, as I was experimenting with the low and high pass filters, I began hearing "laurel" all the time, even after cutting off the high frequencies. I was wondering if Audacity had a bug that was causing it to accidentally play only the low-frequency version, but even after I closed and restarted Audacity, or when I played the audio with Windows media player, it still sounded like "laurel". After not listening to the sound for many minutes, I went back to my "normal" state of hearing "yammy".

Then, later that evening, when I listened to the same audio file, all I heard was "laurel", even after I put the audio through a high-pass filter. I could not hear yanny no matter what I did. What had happened? Was my brain so tired of hearing yanny that it was ignoring it? Or was earwax building up in my ear, making it difficult to hear the high frequencies? Or do our ears or brain change its audio characteristics from day to night? Do we become more sensitive to low frequencies at night?

I decided to take notes on what I was hearing each day and at what time of the day. I played the same audio file as soon as I woke up the next morning. I was expecting to hear yammy because that is what I heard when I listened to the audio for the first time, but I heard "laurel". Why was I now hearing "laurel"?

I then put the audio through a high-pass filter, and that allowed me to hear yammy. However, when I began playing both the filtered audio and the non-filtered audio, one after the other, I was soon hearing only laurel. Later that evening, I could only hear laurel, even with the high-pass filter.

The next morning all I heard was laurel, even with the high-pass filter. An hour later I could hear yammy with a high-pass filter, but it lasted only a while and then switched back to laurel. An hour after that I heard something like "yerry" with a high-pass filter. Throughout the next few hours I would occasionally play the audio that I put through the high-pass filter, and I continued to hear "yerry".

Next I decided to play the unfiltered audio, and I heard laurel. I then immediately played the audio that I put through the high-pass filter, but instead of hearing "yerry", I heard laurel.

The next day was similar in that I would normally hear laurel, even after putting it through a high-pass filter. There was one time that day when the I heard "yerry" with the high-pass filter, and then I decided to play it over and over while focusing on the word "laurel" in my mind, and after about 4 repetitions the audio sounded like "laurel". Perhaps my mind would have switched to hearing laurel on its own, but it seems that I had managed to make my mind switch from hearing the yerry to hearing laurel simply by concentrating on the word laurel.

When the audio that had been through the high-pass filter starts sounding like laurel, I can make it return to hearing "yammy" or "yerry" if I replay the audio over and over while repeating the word "yammy" or "yerry" to myself. This is more evidence that I have a certain ability to make my mind interpret a sound in the manner I want to interpret it.

Why doesn't my mind interpret the audio in the same way each time? Perhaps listening to yanny over and over caused my brain to ignore it so that it could analyze the noise for other sounds, similar to the way my sense of smell will block out the odor of coffee in order to pick up some of the other, more faint odors. If our brain is actively blocking sounds, that would create an even larger difference between us in the way we interpret sounds because the circuitry that does the blocking will be slightly different in each of us.

The next day I was hearing laurel almost always, even after putting the audio through a high-pass filter. If other people had access to my computer, I would be certain that one of them had secretly switched the audio file.

Finally, after not listening to that audio for a couple of days, it once again sounded like "yammy". However, as soon as I put it through the low pass filter to hear "laurel", it switched to Laurel, and I could not get it to sound like yammy no matter how I filtered it.

This brings me to an interesting issue. Specifically, are we sometimes interpreting people's words in the manner we want?

When we listen to people speak, they often mumble a word, or a noise in the background interferes with one of their words. When that happens, we should ask the person to repeat the word, but there may be times when our mind decodes the mumbled sound into the word that we are expecting – or wanting – to hear, and without our awareness that our mind did this. We would end up with an incorrect analysis of his sentence. Another person listening to the same conversation might interpret the mumble as a different word, thereby creating an argument over what the person said.

None of the people would realize that they were interpreting the mumbled sound differently unless they played an audio recording of the conversation and noticed that each person was hearing a different word for that mumbled sound.

This, incidentally, shows another reason why it is important for us – especially the police – to record audio conversations rather than take notes or depend upon our memory.

A computer with a microphone will always give the same results when analyzing the same sound, but after many days of listening to that laurel and yanny sound, it is obvious that my sense of hearing is worthless for analyzing sounds. It is more evidence that the human senses were not designed to be scientific instruments. We are just monkeys, and our vision, hearing, smell, and taste evolved to help us survive a battle for life, not to understand the world.

This is black-and-white image; there are no gray dots.

Optical illusions show us that we cannot believe what we see with our eyes, and the laurel and yanny audio shows that we cannot believe what we hear. We need to analyze the world with scientific instruments, and we need to find scientific support for all of our theories.

Do we develop "audio habits"?

My analysis of the laurel-yanny sound was casual and brief, so I didn't learn much, but I suspect that it would be useful to conduct some serious, scientific studies of how different people interpret that sound, and other mumbles and noises. One reason is that I wonder if we are developing "audio habits".

The first time we do some physical activity that we have never done before, such as walk, ride a bicycle, or shuffle a deck of cards, we have to concentrate on what we are doing, and we make lots of mistakes. However, when we do it over and over, our mind learns how to do it. Some people describe this as "developing a habit," or "learning a skill".

How do we develop a habit? What exactly is happening inside our mind? Although we don't know the details, developing a habit requires memorizing a sequence of muscular movements. Once our mind has memorized the sequence, we can shuffle the cards, ride a bicycle, or take a walk, without thinking about how to do it. Our muscles seem to move by themselves, but in reality, our mind is moving our muscles according to the list of movements that it has memorized.

Perhaps our mind does something similar with sounds. In other words, the first time we hear a sound, our mind may put it through a lot of processing in order to figure out what the sound is, and what it means to us. If we hear the same sound over and over, our mind may remember the sound and what it means. Then, the next time we hear the sound, instead of wasting time to process the sound, our mind scans our memory, notices that we've heard it many times already, and gives us the meaning that it associated with the sound.

Perhaps after repeatedly listening to the laurel-yanny audio, my mind came to the conclusion that the dominant component of that audio is "laurel", and so now it wants to avoid processing the data and tell me that it is laurel.

If our mind is trying to save time by memorizing sounds and their meanings, then this characteristic will be another reason that we interpret sounds differently because the circuitry that performs this function will be slightly different in each of us.

I also suspect that our brain has some crude audio filtering functions, such as a high-pass filter to make it easier for us to hear children, and a low pass filter so we can hear adults and growling animals. If we have such filters, they are operating automatically, which means that we never know when our brain is filtering audio, which will cause even more discrepancies in how we interpret the world. Furthermore, everybody's filter circuitry will be genetically unique.

I also have the impression that our mind has a feature in which it analyzes sounds in order to find what we expect the sound to be. In other words, if we are expecting to hear "laurel", our mind will deliberately analyze the audio to see if it can find "laurel", and if it finds "laurel", it will be satisfied and stop the analysis. Our mind may not realize that it could also have found "yanny".

While such a feature might seem to be idiotic, it would be valuable to our prehistoric ancestors. For example, if a person was in a forest and suspected that there was a wolf in the area, the image in his mind of a wolf would cause his mind to analyze the sounds to see if any resemble the noises made by a wolf. By rapidly searching for a wolf noise, his brain would more quickly find a wolf noise, and in a prehistoric environment, that could make the difference between life and death.

If the person is instead looking for his lost child, the image in his mind of his frightened child would cause his mind to analyze the sounds to find the high-pitched voice and crying of a child, and the words a child might yell out.

The ability to filter audio, and to analyze audio for a particular type of sound, might explain how we can hear an individual person speaking when other people are having other conversations at the same time. When we are among a group of people who are speaking at the same time, we can focus our attention on one of the people, and we can often hear what he is saying. Perhaps the reason we can do this is because our mind is analyzing the sounds to see which are matching his particular frequency and volume level.

If our mind has the ability to analyze sounds to find particular types of sounds, it is another feature that we don't have much control over. All we can do is put an image in our mind and focus on the sounds made by whatever we are visualizing. Also, each of us will have different genetic circuitry for that type of processing, so that will be another reason that each of us interprets the same sounds slightly differently. It would also explain why some people have an easier time hearing a conversation when there is a lot of background noise, and other people complain that there is too much noise for them to hear what is being said.


Does your vision get blurry at night?

I did not pay any attention to my eyesight as a child, but when I was an adult, I noticed that my vision was significantly more blurry in the evening compared to the daytime. The blurriness was mainly for objects far away, so perhaps it would be more accurate to say that my eyes became "more nearsighted" at night. I assumed that everybody had this characteristic, and that it was due to the muscles in our eyes becoming tired at night, and not pulling the lens into proper focus.

The blurriness seemed worse if I ate a lot for dinner, especially sweet foods, so I wondered if the blurriness was aggravated by chemical imbalances in my blood that interfered with the muscles in my eyes, or altered the pressure in my eyeballs.

When I mentioned to an eye doctor that my vision is blurry at night, and that it would be better to have a vision test in the evening rather than during the daytime, he responded that he never heard of such a problem, although he thought it was possible that some diabetics have such a problem.

If we would eliminate secrecy, put everybody through a variety of medical tests, and maintain a public database of everybody's characteristics and life, we might eventually understand some of our strange characteristics. How many people besides me have blurry vision at night, and of those people, what do we have in common? Do they have problems with thyroid hormones, also? Or do they have problems controlling blood sugar levels, or some other chemical in the blood?

A lot of people are paranoid of a database with detailed data about us, but you might discover a lot of interesting and useful information about yourself if such a database existed, and if we had software to analyze that data and find patterns.

My voice changes at night, also

When I was creating my video about the 9/11 attack, I recorded some portions of the audio in the day, and some in the evening. I noticed that I sounded like a different person at night. I had to start over and record again, and only during the day. I then noticed that my father's voice also changed from morning to night. What does it mean? How many people have this problem? Is it related to the problem of my eyesight getting blurry at night?

Our senses are not identical

Each of us also has a different ability to see colors. Some people see farther into the infrared, and others farther into the ultraviolet, and some people have various types of color blindness. We also have different sensitivities to color and light, allowing some people to see colors in dim light, and some people have better night vision.

We also have subtle differences in our sense of smell. For example, I've noticed that some women can sense when somebody has been eating garlic, even though I cannot smell it.

The genetic differences between our brain circuitry and our sensory organs causes each of us to interpret the world in a slightly different manner. When we hear a dog bark, a bird chirp, a machine make noises, and a person scratch his fingernails on a blackboard, each of us hears something slightly different. And when we look around us, and smell the odors, we see and smell a slightly different world.

If we had a database with everybody's life and characteristics, we might be able to understand some of our differences and characteristics. We would notice that some people are exceptional at noticing certain odors, and others can see different frequencies of light, and some people are suffering a loss in hearing as a result of not wearing hearing protection at their jobs, or because they were playing music too loud.

I mentioned here that I find the herringbone pattern to be an annoying pattern for clothing, but other people like it. Is it possible that we are seeing something slightly different when we look at it? Is it like an irritating optical illusion to some of us, but a pleasant design to others? Perhaps one of the reasons we have a different taste in art is because when we look at art, each of us sees something slightly different.

If we could connect our brain to somebody else's brain and passively observe what they see, hear, and smell, we would discover that what they observe is slightly different from what we observe. Our genetic differences in how we interpret the world could help explain why witnesses to a crime often disagree on what they see, smell, and hear.

In case you don't know, "monk fruit" is another alternative to sugar. As with Stevia, you will have to experiment with the different brands and options to figure out which one you like best for different purposes.

Our genetic differences could also explain why we have different reactions to foods and perfumes. Recently the KAL company changed their formula for Stevia. It no longer has an aftertaste, but it also no longer has the sweetening power that it used to have. Their new version is useful for sweetening mild tasting items, but their previous version was better for other applications, at least to me. Somebody else may have a different opinion on which type of Stevia is best simply because we interpret chemicals differently.

If we replace the free enterprise system with a more advanced system, then instead of businesses boasting that they have the best product, they could provide us with a variety of different products and let each of us decide which is best.

We could make some interesting movies with this concept

Our genetic differences in how we interpret the world could create interesting comedies, murder mysteries, and dramas. For example, a crime could take place in an area where the security cameras or cell phones are picking up electromagnetic interference that distorts the video and audio. When the police analyze the recordings, they can clearly see that leader of the crime network is being referred to as "Laurel", so they look for somebody with that name who resembles that criminal.

They eventually find a man who has a resemblance to the criminal, and who has the name of Laurel. He claims to have been sleeping at his home during the night of the crime but, as with most of us, he has no way to prove that he was at home.

Laurel is arrested, and is taken to court. The jurors watch the distorted video that implicates Laurel. One of the jury members, Ralph, does not realize it, but he is one of a tiny minority of the population who hears the name "Yanny" rather than "Laurel" in that particular sound pattern. Ralph is confused when he hears everybody claim to hear "Laurel", so when the jury gets together to discuss the issue, Ralph asks the others how can they possibly convict Laurel of the crime when the audio clearly proves that the man's name is "Yanny". Some of the jurors suggest to Ralph that he go to a doctor to check for a brain tumor or ear cancer.

Ralph goes to a doctor, but the doctor can't find anything wrong with his ears or brain, so the doctor assumes it must be a psychological problem and tells Ralph to go to a psychiatrist.

The psychiatrist, who refuses to consider the possibility that our genetics determines our characteristics, comes to the conclusion that Ralph's ego has a conflict with his superego, and so he prescribes some mental health drugs. However, Ralph continues to hear "Yanny" rather than "Laurel", so after several months he goes to another psychiatrist who wonders if perhaps his Oedipus complex is out of control, so he prescribes some other mental health drugs, and a bit shock therapy.

Occasionally Ralph hears "Laurel", and that causes him and the psychiatrist to believe that he is recovering, but it is always temporary, and he soon reverts to hearing Yanny. Ralph ends up going from one psychiatrist to the next, year after year, and in the process he ruins his physical health and his relationships, and is eventually unable to hold a job. He ends up being put into a mental hospital.

We could make comedies in which barbers, airlines, or waitresses are taking orders over a low-quality phone network and misinterpreting their customers. Or imagine a man who was so sensitive to female pheromones that he could determine, almost as accurately as a male animal, when a woman is in the mood for sex, or about to give birth. Or, a person who hears "yanny" but occasionally hears "laurel" could accuse the government of testing a mind control device that beams thoughts into people's brains.

There could be dramas in which a military official accidentally fires missiles because he interprets sounds differently than most people. A plot could also be about somebody who has such an unusual sense of smell that he can often determine whether somebody is lying or frightened by the change in odors that we emit when certain emotions are triggered.

Another plot could have witnesses to a crime that have different abilities to sense color and contrast, causing them to have different descriptions of a crime scene, but the police don't realize that the witnesses have different visual abilities, so they assume one of the witnesses is lying in order to send the police in the wrong direction. In reality, the witness they accuse of lying is actually better than everybody else at determining what actually happened.

Every month in the USA there seems to be a few groups of citizens, government officials, or organizations arguing with each other, staging demonstrations, and filing lawsuits over the Second Amendment. For three recent examples:

• In April 2018, the NRA and the California Rifle and Pistol Association filed their fourth lawsuit against the state of California, this time over the proposal to restrict the sale of bullets via the Internet.

• In May 2018 the city of Boulder, Colorado prohibited "bump stocks" and the type of guns they defined as "assault weapons", and they raised the minimum age for gun ownership to 21. In response, the Boulder Rifle Club filed a lawsuit, and the Mountain States Legal Foundation threatened to sue the city for "violations of the Second, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments".

• Also in May 2018, President Trump and Vice President Pence spoke at a NRA meeting. Pence claimed that "firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens" make communities safer, and Trump promised to support the Second Amendment, and to support the proposal for "letting highly trained teachers carry concealed weapons."

In response, Cameron Kasky, a student at the Florida high school where 17 students were supposedly killed in February 2018 by one man with a gun, accused Trump of being "a professional liar who will say anything to appease whatever crowd he's at"; Gabriel Giffords, the former Congresswoman, accused Trump of allowing "his presidency to be hijacked by gun lobbyists and campaign dollars"; and David Hogg criticized Trump for being "kind of hypocritical" for speaking at an NRA meeting.

Incidentally, we must raise standards for journalists Those two news articles about Trump's speech to the NRA (in the paragraph above this box) bring up an issue I will remind you of again. Specifically, we are tolerating extremely low quality journalism. After Trump spoke at the NRA meeting, some journalists provided us with responses from two high school students, one of whom lied about being at the school shooting; namely, David Hogg. (If you are unaware of his lies, watch the two, brief television interviews that I have links to at this page.) Some journalists also told us what Gabriel Giffords had to say about the issue, even though such a significant portion of her brain has been destroyed that she would be classified as severely mentally retarded if she had been born that way. There are millions of people in America who could have provided an intelligent analysis of Trump's speech, but some journalists gave publicity to a dishonest teenager and a brain-damaged adult. Prior to the 2016 presidential elections, some journalists asked children, such as the girl in the photo above, if they thought Trump should be elected. Will anybody join me in demanding that we raise standards for journalists? We should fire journalists who interview children or teenagers on important issues. By continuing to give David Hogg favorable publicity, they are encouraging more of his obnoxious, dishonest behavior. For example, in May 2018, he led a group of people to a retail store to lie on the floor in order to protest the store's support for the National Rifle Association. Imagine if people around the world were to stage protests whenever they disagreed with some policy of a business or government. In such a case, there would be protests every day in every city by various groups and for various causes. These protests are not going to solve any of the problems of a modern society. This is the behavior of an obnoxious, bratty child. This is a "temper tantrum", and it should not be tolerated, but the police do nothing to stop it, and neither do the voters or government officials. And, if the protesters are liberals, most journalists give them favorable publicity. The First Amendment gives us the right to "peaceably assemble", but these protesters did not get together to discuss their opinions, or to present the government with their complaints, or to provide information to the public. Rather, they were deliberately trying to annoy people.

Why are so many people arguing over the Second Amendment, but very few people argue about or file lawsuits about the 19th amendment, the 20th amendment, or the 25th amendment? Why not argue about our traffic laws, or the restrictions our government has put on pilots, medical drugs, or the sale of a house?

Obviously, the Second Amendment is more significant to most people than the other aspects of the Constitution. I think two reasons for this are:

1) Americans are frightened by our high crime levels

There is so much crime and corruption in the USA that tens of millions of Americans are frightened that they will become victims of a crime. Fear is a very powerful emotion. It will cause us to stop what we are doing and worry about our safety.

The conservatives tend to react to the fear of crime by wanting weapons for protection from criminals and corrupt government officials, whereas the liberals tend to react by hoping that restrictions on guns will reduce the violence and crime.

By comparison, most other aspects of the Constitution do not concern issues that are so emotionally stimulating. As a result, even though people may disagree with other aspects of the Constitution, they don't have as much motivation to argue about it.

2) America has no leadership to stop the arguments

When a business, military unit, or other organization experiences a problem, the leaders deal with it, not the members, but the U.S. Constitution does not provide the nation with leaders. Instead, it creates a government of submissive representatives who are supposed to pander to their particular supporters.

It is the responsibility of the citizens to tell their submissive representatives what to do about the Second Amendment, but the citizens are not capable of getting together and agreeing on an intelligent policy for guns. Instead, the citizens argue with one another, and their arguments are idiotic. As a result, the government officials cannot resolve the issue.

The USA is analogous to a school in which the teachers are submissive servants who pander to the children rather than provide guidance. In that type of school, the children would have to resolve disputes, and if they could not, then those disputes would persist forever.

Another example of how the USA cannot resolve issues is that we should have switched to the metric system a long time ago, and we could also have switched to a 24 hour clock, but we don't have leaders to authorize the switch.

In May 2018, the Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership posted this document from a pharmacist that is an example of the extreme paranoia and fear among some American citizens. At the beginning of the document, the editor of the website writes,

"We welcome a new author today, a pharmacist working undercover in a front-line state in the gun rights war, who prefers to remain anonymous until escape to a free state becomes possible."

Although the editor might be trying to be amusing, there actually are lots of conservatives who are so paranoid that they regard themselves as "working undercover" in a "gun rights war", and who regard themselves as victims of an oppressive, stifling government that is trying to take away our rights to own weapons.

The author of the article is just as paranoid as the editor, and he also promotes the false claim that we have a right to own guns. He starts the article by telling us that "eternal vigilance is required to safeguard our rights."

He then gets to the main topic of his article, which is to create paranoia about the "sinister threat" of registering our guns. He points out that it is becoming common for organizations to collect data about us, but this data can be inadvertently misused, and it can be deliberately abused. He claims that the German people had to register their guns, and when Hitler got control of Germany, he used that database to disarm the German people.

Like millions of other conservatives, the author worries that the American government is going to use the database of registered gun owners to disarm the American people.

Stand up to the Hitler and Nazi remarks! Although nobody has evidence that Hitler disarmed the German people, most people believe whatever they want to believe, regardless of the evidence. And since Nazis and Hitler have a bad image, many people, when they don't have any intelligent supporting evidence for their theory, will justify it by claiming that Hitler supported the opposing theory, or that their critics are Nazis. By not standing up to people who use Nazis and Hitler as a way of intimidating and manipulating people, we encourage more people to do it. It is already so common that the supporters of President Trump are frequently referred to as Nazis. And if you recall, some of the Google employees are encouraging one another to learn how to punch Nazis. This obnoxious behavior should be suppressed, not encouraged.

I mentioned in other files that most animals become frightened when they notice that another animal is looking at them. The exception are the animals that don't have predators, such as elephants.

“OMG! The government wants to put me on a list of registered gun owners!”

Humans are also frightened when we notice that somebody is watching us, but because of genetic diversity, some of us are more concerned about being observed than others. Some conservatives become so frightened by the thought that somebody is watching them that they become frightened when the government wants them to register their guns.

Like a stupid animal, those paranoid conservatives assume that they are surrounded by dangerous predators, and so they worry that the government is a dangerous tribe of savages that wants to attack the citizens, and that the government wants a list of gun owners so that they know who is capable of defending themselves. Those frightened conservatives worry that the government will send the military to the homes of the people with guns, and then disarm or kill those gun owners, thereby eliminating the only citizens who can oppose them, which will allow those government officials to give themselves dictatorial control of the nation.

Actually, there is a lot of evidence that the Zionist network is trying to get control of the entire planet, so there may be a very large group of Jews and their cohorts struggling to figure out how to take weapons away from the American citizens so that their crime network will have an easier time arresting or murdering those of us who resist them. However, the conservatives are not going to solve such a problem by working themselves into a paranoid frenzy.

It is important to note that if we discover that our government officials, or a network of Jews, are secretly plotting to get dictatorial control of us, we would be foolish to worry about being put on a list of registered gun owners. The solution is to arrest those government officials or Jews, and experiment with a better government system, and a better method of selecting government officials so that we don't have to worry about such problems.

The proper solution to a crime network is to investigate it and destroy it. It is idiotic to react with paranoia and fear. We do not protect ourselves from criminals, crime networks, or corrupt government officials by purchasing guns and hiding like a frightened rabbit. We need to find men who have the courage to seek out the criminals, and who have the courage to use their guns to arrest or execute the criminals, thereby destroying the crime networks.

Unfortunately, when the typical person encounters a problem or becomes afraid of something, such as a crime network or a corrupt government official, he will not face his problems, or look critically at himself or his society. He will not do any research into the issue, or have discussions with other people about what to do. He will be especially frightened to experiment with improvements to his life and society. Instead, he will behave like a stupid animal; specifically, he will either pound his chest and try to appear brave and courageous, like a cat that is hissing, or he will run away and hide.

Each of us is already on lots of different lists. When you purchase an automobile, for example, your name goes on a list of people who own automobiles, and you are also in a list of people with driver's licenses. When you purchase a home, your name will be put in a list of owners of houses. When you get a job, your name is put on a list of employees. All of us are also required to file tax returns every year, and that puts us on a list that provides the government with lots of details about where we live, how much money we make, and how we spend our money.

Lots of businesses maintain lists of their customers, so all of us are on lots of lists that are maintained by businesses. For example, Google, Facebook, doctors, dentists, and many retail stores have lists of their customers, and some keep detailed information about our spending habits, friends, political beliefs, or medical data. Furthermore, some of those companies, such as Voter Gravity, sell lists that contain our names and information about us.

The people who whine that the government has a list of people who own guns should be told that they are emotionally disturbed, paranoid nitwits. If the government is corrupt, we should investigate it and replace or arrest the corrupt officials, not tremble in fear.

If the Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership were a bit more frightened and paranoid, they could be classified as schizophrenic, hysterical, or hallucinating. Those doctors might be capable of providing us with proper medical care, but they are not capable of providing us with sensible advice, analyses, or leadership on the issue of guns, crime, or corruption. Rather, they are encouraging paranoia, fear, and hysteria. We need leaders who can tell people like them to shut up.

It's also important to note that some businesses are run by criminals, which means that crime networks have access to some lists that businesses are maintaining. Furthermore, some crime networks have members who have jobs in a government agency, and some of those criminals have access to government databases, which gives the crime networks access to those particular databases. For example, if a crime network has a member working for the IRS, that crime network may have access to your tax returns.

The Estonian government has offered 100,000 citizens the opportunity to have free genetic testing so that their genetic information can go into a medical research database for the University of Tartu. Rather than appreciate the attempt by the University to improve healthcare, one of the thousands of websites that promotes Jewish propaganda, zerohedge, has this article in which they complain that the Estonian government:

"...will not only know what their citizens are searching on the Internet, but will also have the knowledge of personal genetic information: ancestry charts, genetic composition, health history, and anything else that can be extracted from an Estonian’s double helix. So much knowledge in one organization is absolutely terrifying."

What is "absolutely terrifying" about collecting genetic information about people? That type of database would be incredibly useful in helping us to understand our health problems, as well as the differences between men and women, young people and old people, and different races.

I don't see anything terrifying about "the government" collecting our DNA. We should regard our DNA as a "form of identification".

However, we should be concerned that crime networks are collecting information about us. The crime networks that are operating within our government, businesses, legal system, and schools are gathering information about us, and we need to identify those criminals and remove them.

If you do not realize how dangerous it is to allow crime networks to observe us and gather information about us, consider what I have been going through since 2002, when I began exposing the 9/11 attack as a false flag operation. I have been contacted repeatedly by people who wanted to be my friend, and some of my relatives have been contacted also, and I suppose some of my neighbors have been contacted. The Jews have been looking for my weaknesses, and trying to find a way to set me up for blackmail, bribery, accidental death, suicide, or murder. I mentioned only some of these events in my documents. Some examples are:

• Somebody convinced one of my cousins that he would not be able to get a job he was applying for because that job required he get a security clearance, but when the government saw that I had an "anti-Semitic" website, he would be denied a security clearance.
• Trond Halvorsen, a Norwegian man, tried to convince me to take a trip with him to Thailand to have sex.
• Jon Gold, who refers to himself as a 9/11 investigator, sent me lewd email messages of how he was sexually excited by me. I suppose he is homosexual, and he was trying to find out if I was, also.
• Several people tried to convince me to take a trip to visit them, but for what reason? I suspect it was to try to set me up for bribery, blackmail, suicide, or accidental death.

For all we know, the Israeli government has a list of people that they are trying to set up for blackmail, death, or bribery. Some people may be pestered even more than me. For all we know, Donald Trump has been caught in one of their blackmail traps, and that is why he is so resistant to exposing the 9/11 attack as a Jewish false flag operation.

It is foolish to worry about "the government" maintaining a list of gun owners, or maintaining a database of our DNA. We should instead be concerned that crime networks are gathering information about us.

Google is collecting a lot of information about us, and I suspect that their management is working for the same Jewish crime network that did the 9/11 attack, and I would bet that they are using that information to identify and suppress those of us who are trying to expose or stop their crime network.

There are tens of millions of Americans with guns, but none of them are doing what the Second Amendment advocates, which is to get together and use their guns to protect the nation from criminals and corrupt governments. Rather, most people want guns because they are frightened. They want a gun for emotional security.

It is idiotic to let cowardly people have guns. They will not protect the nation from crime or corruption. They are not likely to be interested in being trained on how to use or store guns, either. Rather, they are likely to want the gun to be nearby them, just like a child wants his teddy bear nearby. This results in the cowardly people putting guns in dresser drawers, under their pillow, or under their bed, which can result in their children discovering the guns and accidentally injuring or killing themselves and their neighbors.

The Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, and everybody else who wants a gun, should stop being afraid to register their guns, and offer to assist the police and military in destroying the crime networks. They should do what the Second Amendment says; specifically, use their guns for the security of the nation. If they are too afraid to do that, they should not have a gun. They should suck on a pacifier instead.

Or those cowardly people should get a gun that fires blanks. When they see a criminal, they can fire the gun immediately without hesitation, which will attract the attention of people in the vicinity, who should call the police. Even though the blanks are dangerous, blanks will significantly reduce the number of accidental deaths and injuries, and there will be fewer lead bullets polluting the environment.

By hiding from criminals rather than destroying their networks, we have enabled criminals to take control of the entertainment businesses and media. Two significant effects of this on society are:

1) The criminals create movies, artwork, news articles, school books, and music that promote the philosophies and people that the criminals want to promote. In other documents I've described some of their art as "toilet humor", and as indistinguishable from the "trash" at a city dump. They also frequently promote feminism and bizarre sexual behavior, and the movies often have what some of us regard as "gratuitous violence".


2) The entertainers who are victims of the criminals often create songs, music, and artwork to express their frustration, hatred, anger, or sadness. They are giving us weird and bizarre entertainment, rather than pleasant and inspiring entertainment.

For example, this music video shows a group of people who have found the courage to kill the members of a pedophile network that is selling children. Some screen images are below. Is that your idea of a pleasant music video?

	The truck has children for sale, and the customers are inspecting the "merchandise".		This man is putting the two children that he purchased into the trunk of his car.

The lyrics of the song don't make any sense to me, but I suggest you push people into watching the video and discussing such issues as:

• Why would musicians create a music video with that type of message? Do they know that these pedophile networks exist, and if so, is the video an expression of their anger and frustration?

• If these pedophile networks exist, why are the police departments, FBI, and other agencies ignoring this problem?

• Why are the journalists and government officials insisting that the accusations about pizzagate and pedophilia networks are "fake news" when there are so many people claiming that these networks really do exist?

Tim Bergling, the man who created the video, supposedly committed suicide at the age of 28. Like a lot of artists, he was suffering from some significant mental and physical problems, so he may truly have committed suicide, but some people wonder if he was murdered by the pedophile network to keep him quiet, or to intimidate other people into remaining silent.

However, don't let the possibility that he was murdered intimidate you into silence. Instead of living in fear of pedophile networks, let his death inspire you to spread his video and this information to more people, and to encourage them to help expose and destroy the pedophile networks, as the people in that video do.

Some of our distant ancestors created songs simply because they were enjoying life, wanted to sing, and wanted to share their joy of life. They created pleasant songs with pleasant lyrics. During the past few decades, however, criminals have been controlling who can publish and distribute music, and this is creating a lot of angry and resentful musicians, and it is also allowing the crime networks to promote the musicians who are psychotic, antisocial, sexually disturbed, and violent.

The end result of allowing criminals to dominate the entertainment businesses is that a lot of the music that has been created during the past century is coming from psychotic, angry, and miserable people. A lot of the songs have hidden meanings, and a lot of them are promoting bizarre attitudes. For example:

• Katy Perry's song, California Gurls, seems to have the hidden meaning of how she became a famous entertainer; specifically, by agreeing to participate in orgies with managers of the entertainment business.

• Lady Gaga sang a bizarre song about "pigs", which I suppose refers to the management of the entertainment businesses. (Here are the lyrics.)

Update 18 July 2018: Somebody sent me a link to this video of her "swine" performance. The video begins with her giving an explanation of why she wrote the song, although she doesn't provide details about who she is referring to when she says "you're just a pig inside a human body". After I watched that video, I realized that I had recorded a higher quality version of her explanation a year ago. Her audience frequently yells as she talks, so I cut out some of their obnoxious noises, and I posted that edited MP3 audio file here: Lady-Gaga-swine-edited.mp3    830 Kbytes

• Recently Taylor Swift created "Look What You Made Me Do", in which she seems to be rebelling against the management of the entertainment businesses.

• After the accusations that Paul McCartney died in 1966, the music produced by the Beatles changed so significantly that almost everybody noticed. Their music was originally cheerful and pleasant, but after 1966 it became sad, psychotic, and weird.

If we can get the criminals out of our society, then the art, music, television programs, and news articles would be created by people with a better attitude and better mental health. That would provide us with art that is pleasant, entertaining, and inspiring, rather than weird, confusing, depressing, and disgusting.

I think future generations are going to look at our era as one of sadness, and they will rewrite a lot of the songs of the 20th and 21st century to give them more pleasant lyrics.

In previous documents, such as here, I mentioned that we ought to investigate the "pizzagate" theory; specifically, investigate the accusation that a pedophile network is operating within our government, schools, media, and other organizations, and that some pizza parlors, donut shops, and other businesses are involved with it, also.

Does Weiner really have a video of Clinton torturing a young girl to death?

In April 2018, some people, such as David Zublick, claimed that a video has been released on the "dark web" of Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin torturing and sexually abusing a young girl in order to cause her body to create large amounts of adrenochrome, and then they murdered her and drank her blood. They claim that this video, referred to as Frazzledrip, was on Anthony Weiner's laptop computer, and that the New York City police were horrified by it.

The Ambrosia company sells the blood of children to the people who believe that injections of a child's blood will help them to live longer, but are there crime networks involved with the kidnapping and killing of children in order to provide that blood at a lower cost?

Is there really a network of people who are kidnapping and torturing children so that they can drink blood that has a high level of adrenochrome? Or was this theory created by the pedophiles in order to make those of us who complain about pizzagate to appear to be idiots?

In March 2018, the founder of NXIVM, Keith Raniere, was arrested for treating members of his organization as sex slaves. Allison Mack, an actress, one of several women who were members of NXIVM, chased after the police for making the arrest, but a month later she was arrested for her role in the abuse. In May 2018, a doctor for NXIVM was accused of performing a 'fright study' but the journalists do not seem interested in finding out why he did it, or for whom.

Also in May 2018, David Zublick accused some Bronfman family members and the former New York Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman, of helping NXIVM with their crimes. If the Attorney General of New York was involved with a crime network, it is no wonder that our media and government refuse to expose or stop the network.

Does the Frazzledrip video really exist? If so, it should be used as a way of determining who among us should be a voter, policeman, FBI agent, military leader, and a government official. People who cannot watch that type of video and provide an intelligent analysis of it should be classified as unfit for certain types of jobs, such as a policeman and a voter. A person who runs away from that type of video, or who becomes hysterical, should be described as a "talking monkey" who cannot cope with the unpleasant aspects of modern human societies.

Those of you who have tried to show other people the evidence that the World Trade Center towers were destroyed by explosives must have encountered people who ignored the information. We cannot eliminate crime networks when people, especially the police, military, and voters, run away and hide from criminals.

We need to find men who have the emotional ability to look at and analyze the evidence of a crime. And we need those men to have the courage to do what the Second Amendment says; namely, use their guns to protect the nation from criminals, including criminals who are wealthy and famous, such as government officials, business executives, Hollywood celebrities, police chiefs, and members of a royal family.

Furthermore, if the Frazzledrip video truly exists, it should also be used as more proof that the feminist attitude is false. The feminists are frequently promoting the theory that the world has lots of wars and crime because men are violent and selfish, but if the Frazzledrip video exists, then it should be used as more evidence that women can be just as deceptive, violent, selfish, abusive, and disgusting as men. Women are not better than men; rather, they are different, so they have a tendency to commit different types of crimes.

The Frazzledrip video brings up another important issue. Specifically, as technology improves, it becomes easier for criminals to fake video and audio recordings. And imagine what will happen when criminals develop the ability to create DNA. They will be able to create a person's DNA and leave it at a crime scene, thereby making it appear as if an innocent person was responsible for the crime.

During the past few months, many journalists have been providing reports about the technology to create fake videos, such as this report. I suspect that the journalists want to inform the public about this technology because they want the public to realize that it is now possible to create fake videos, and therefore, when the real videos are released, the police and public will not know which are real and which are fake. Therefore, Hillary Clinton will be able to claim that the Frazzledrip video is one of the fake videos.

Furthermore, I would not be surprised if some pedophiles are funding the development of the software that creates fake videos. If I was in control of our law enforcement agencies, I would authorize an investigation of the people who are encouraging or providing financial support for that software, and the people who want to use it.

As our technology improves, criminals are provided with more opportunities to commit crimes, cover up their crimes, fool the police with fake evidence, and set other people up to be blamed for their crimes. For just three examples:

• Criminals can now use drones to kill people; set fire to forests, buildings, and oil refineries; and spread mice, fleas, or aerosols of LSD or poisons.

• The technology to control automobiles provides criminals with lots of new opportunities. For example, a crime network could incapacitate a person with some type of drug, put him in the driver's seat of a car, and when he gets near a crowd of people, remotely control the steering so that he drives into the people, thereby creating the impression that the person in the driver's seat did it deliberately.

• As robots become more advanced, criminals will have even more options for crimes.

When I first mentioned "pizzagate" (here), I pointed out that it is suspicious that lots of journalists quickly rushed to the defense of Comet Pizza and insisted that the accusations were false. This is a very important concept to understand. I discussed it many years ago here when I pointed out that the Jews do not have to defend the truth about the Holocaust, and the American government does not have to defend the truth about the Iraqis who were throwing babies out of incubators.

The truth does not need protection, so if Weiner's laptop did not have a Frazzledrip video, nobody needs to protect Clinton from a non-existent video. And if the Comet Pizza shop is not involved with a pedophile network, nobody needs to defend them. Only lies need to be defended and protected.

If you can understand this concept then you should wonder why some sites, such as factcheck.org and snopes.com, quickly posted articles (this and this) to inform us that the Frazzledrip video does not exist. How could they possibly be so certain that it does not exist? And why would they bother to discredit a video that almost nobody had heard of at that time?

Furthermore, it is difficult to prove something does not exist. The only people who know for certain whether that video exists are the investigators who had access to Anthony Weiner's laptop, and who also know how to search a hard disk.

Therefore, all of the people who are insisting that the video does not exist are liars since they did not inspect the hard disk. This should make you ask such questions as, "Why would they so quickly post articles on the Internet to convince us that the video does not exist? Why would they be willing to lie about such a significant crime?"

Before you answer those questions, do a bit of research into those two websites and notice that they are lying to us about the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, the Apollo moon landing, and other crimes. This should lead you to the conclusion that those websites are under the control of the criminals who are responsible for those crimes. This should also make you wonder if the reason they are trying to convince us that the Frazzledrip video does not exist is because it does indeed exist.

The conservatives love to boast that they want to protect children, so why are they ignoring the evidence that pedophile networks exist? Why do they spend so much time whining about abortion while ignoring the Hampstead children, the orphans at Boystown, and the Comet Pizza parlor?

The reason is because the conservatives follow their leaders, but they will follow only the leaders who tell them what they want to hear. Since they have a strong desire to protect children, they demand their leaders also have a strong desire to protect children, so they select leaders who oppose abortion, rather than look for leaders who provide them with intelligent analyses of abortion and related issues.

As I mentioned earlier, when people look for a submissive leader, they allow criminals to get into leadership positions. Since a pedophile can condemn abortion, the conservatives will consider even a pedophile as an appropriate leader. I suspect that the leaders of conservative organizations are ignoring the pedophile network because a lot of them are pedophiles, or involved with some other crime network.

The conservatives have done a terrible job of selecting leaders for themselves. For example, their leaders insist that pizzagate has been proven to be fake news, and millions of conservatives mindlessly follow along. They don't investigate the issue for themselves. They don't ask for evidence because they don't need or want evidence. They follow without asking why. They have no interest in thinking for themselves.

The conservatives are making themselves look like idiots with their constant whining about abortion while showing no concern about pedophile networks, or for the quality of life of the unwanted children. Some of those children end up as sex slaves, or as homeless creatures that survive from crime and finding food in our trash cans. The conservatives are tormenting the unwanted children, not protecting them. They are also allowing a pedophile network to infiltrate our government, businesses, media, and other organizations with blackmailed pedophiles.

The liberals don't have anything intelligent to say about the issue of guns, crime, pedophile networks, or corruption, either. Furthermore, the liberals are more likely than conservatives to arrange for obnoxious and violent demonstrations in public streets and parks. The Constitution gives us the right to get together to discuss issues, but it does not give us the right to throw rocks at the police or set trash cans on fire.

If some employees of a business were to stage a violent demonstration and throw rocks at the executives, the executives would not passively stand behind plastic shields and allow them to throw rocks. Rather, they would fire those employees, or have them arrested.

Our government officials should behave more like business executives and other leaders; specifically, they should allow peaceful discussions but not violent demonstrations.

Furthermore, the Constitution does not give us the right to leave trash on public streets, as in the photo below, which shows trash from a March For Our Lives protest. The police should have demanded that those protesters pick up their litter. If any protester refused to join in on the cleaning, he should be considered as unacceptable for our modern society, and he should be evicted, or restricted to certain neighborhoods.

Businesses, militaries, and other organizations don't allow their members to have tantrums and leave enormous amounts of trash scattered around their facilities. Respectable parents don't let their children scatter trash around the house or yard, either. There is no reason that a nation has to tolerate such abuse.

The reason we tolerate this abuse is because we have a government of submissive servants rather than leaders, and because our nation promotes a "Feel Sorry for the Underdog" attitude.

Businesses, militaries, and other organizations don't offer "free lunches", or accept the wretched refuse and huddled masses, and our nation can follow the same policies. We can stop being a human garbage dump, and start becoming a nation of impressive people.

The March For Our Lives protest in March 2018 was a nationwide event in which more than a million teenagers and adults protested for more restrictions for guns. Students at more than 3000 schools participated, and millions of dollars were donated by wealthy liberals to fund the protests.

The journalists might have given you the impression that it was a protest by high school students, but thousands of adults were quietly arranging, funding, and planning the protests. The teenagers may have been nothing more than pawns who were being used by the adults.

The people who joined or supported the protests believe that by increasing the restrictions on guns, they will reduce the shootings at schools, but there are two important aspects to this issue that they should consider:

1) School shootings are insignificant

Students face a lot of problems in life, but one of the most insignificant threats to a student is a school shooting. Students are much more likely to be injured or killed from automobiles, obesity, drug abuse, lack of exercise, gang fights, and sports events.

If we were to eliminate secrecy and keep a detailed database of everybody's life, we would be able to analyze everybody's injuries, medical problems, and deaths, and that would help us determine what is causing people to become injured or die. We would discover that very few people have been injured or killed from a school shooting, and that most people are suffering from self-inflicted problems, such as overeating, using a cell phone while driving, abusing alcohol or other drugs, and playing sports.

Another significant problem for students is that college educations are becoming absurdly expensive, and a lot of college courses have no value. As a result, many students and/or their families end up with tremendous debt, and many college graduates end up working as unskilled laborers.

I would also say that a significant problem for many students is finding friends and a spouse. Many students are so confused, and have such unrealistic expectations for life and marriage, that they have a lot of miserable relationships. If they get married, many of them will suffer from fights and divorces. Some have so many failed relationships that they get a venereal disease.

If a student is truly concerned about his health and life, he should be more concerned about those problems rather than school shootings. Worrying about a school shooting is almost as idiotic as worrying about being hit by a meteor.

2) Most school shootings seem to be false flag operations.

Most of the school shootings are so bizarre and suspicious, and the reaction of the police and journalists is so suspicious, that I think they are false flag operations, and that they are arranged by the same Jewish crime network that is responsible for the 9/11 attack, the world wars, and the attack on the USS Liberty.

If I am correct, then it is absurd for the students to believe that restrictions on guns will stop school shootings because the only way to stop a false flag operation is to identify and destroy the crime network that is running them.

The Jews do not need guns to conduct false flag operations. They can use vehicles, for example. They can drug a person, put him in a driver's seat, and then remotely control his vehicle to drive into some students at school.

Even the dumb students should be able to see that the school shootings are suspicious. For example, I have links to videos that prove that David Hogg is a liar, but the journalists ignore that he's a liar rather than demand that he explain himself, and they continue to give him lots of favorable publicity. The dishonest and deceptive behavior of David Hogg and the journalists should be regarded as evidence that the school shooting in Parkland, Florida was a false flag operation.

The students should also be able to see that the 9/11 attack was a false flag operation, and so was the attack on the USS Liberty. Therefore, instead of complaining that we need more restrictions on guns, the students should demand that the police departments and military destroy the crime networks that are running the false flag operations.

The point of this section is to bring to your attention that the students who protest school shootings are protesting an issue that is of almost no significance to anybody. It would make more sense for the students to protest an issue that is truly relevant to us, such as:

• They could complain that we are being lied to by journalists, government officials, and teachers about the school shootings, the 9/11 attack, the world wars, the Apollo moon landing, and other issues.

• They could complain that automobiles are dangerous, and our cities are ugly, noisy, and overcrowded, and that our government should start funding the research and development of better cities and better transportation systems.

A government of submissive representatives is idiotic

The Constitution has a few good qualities, such as preventing the government from interfering with freedom of speech, but a government of submissive representatives is so helpless, ineffective, and easily manipulated that a small group of pedophiles, Jews, and lunatics have been able to get control of the USA and exploit us to an incredible extent.

For example, a small group of criminal Jews have been able to get away with televising the demolition of the World Trade Center buildings. This is equivalent to a crime gang broadcasting a video of themselves as they rob a bank, and the police, journalists, and public ignore the obvious fact that the video is evidence of their crime.

How can we boast that the American Constitution has created the greatest government in the world when criminals are routinely getting away with such destructive and disgusting crimes? How can anybody be proud of our school system, law enforcement agencies, FBI, courts, or media when they are routinely lying to us?

It would make more sense to provide a nation with the type of leadership that we provide to militaries, businesses, scientific laboratories, and other organizations. The government officials should be leaders, not submissive servants. Furthermore, we should restrict leadership to the men who show an above-average level of self-control, and an above-average interest in society.

With that type of government, our leaders would provide us with an intelligent analysis of the Second Amendment instead of an idiotic emotional reaction. Furthermore, instead of pandering to the people, our leaders would have the emotional ability to tell the people who misinterpret the Second Amendment:

"Our Constitution does not give citizens the right to weapons. It gives that right only to trained teams of security personnel. Those of you who are unable to understand this are detrimental to a discussion of the issue, so keep your mouth shut."

If the USA had that type of government, then our leaders would discuss the issue of whether citizens should have guns, and if so, for what purposes, and what rules they should follow. From that discussion, they would develop a policy for guns that is based on intelligent reasoning rather than emotional cravings. Furthermore, after implementing the policy, they would regularly give it a critical review to ensure that it is truly helpful, and they would experiment with changes to the policy in order to figure out if there are ways to improve upon it.

In this article, the author justifies allowing citizens to own guns on the grounds that an "exhaustive study" has proven that "Murder Rates Rise Every Place that Bans Guns". The first chart he shows to prove his remark is the chart below of "homicides, firearm offenses, and intimate violence" in England and Wales from 1990 to 2011. It shows that after a handgun ban was authorized in 1997, there was a spike in the number of homicides.

However, if we look at the British government's report, we can see that the chart above is just a small section of a larger chart that starts in 1967, and that larger chart brings us to a different conclusion:

Notes: Source: Homicide Index, Home Office. Police recorded crime data are not designated as National Statistics. Year 1987 includes 15 victims of Michael R1. Year 2000/01 includes 58 Chinese nationals who suffocated in a lorry en route into the UK. Year 2002/03 includes 172 victims of Dr Harold Shipman. Year 2003/04 includes 20 cockle pickers who drowned in Morecambe Bay. Year 2005/06 includes 52 victims of the 7 July London bombings. Year 2010/11 includes 12 victims of Derrick Bird.

The chart above shows that homicides have been increasing since 1967, peeking around 2003, and then dropping down again. That chart does not "exhaustively prove" that banning guns in 1997 has increased the murder rate in Britain.

Even more important, look at notes #4 through #7. Those notes show that one of the reasons the chart reached such a high peak between 2000 and 2006 is because those years included a lot of people who suffocated in a bus, who were killed with morphine by a doctor, who drowned in the ocean, and who were victims of the Israeli false flag operation on 7-7-2005.

Also, the 172 victims of Doctor Shipman that were counted as homicides in 2002 and 2003 were actually killed many years earlier, but those are the years the government decided to add those murders to its database.

The conservatives deliberately sliced the chart in such a manner that it looked as if the homicide rate increased after guns were banned. The conservatives show no embarrassment or shame for twisting statistics, and the liberals do not, either. Both groups do this on a regular basis.

Actually, everybody has a tendency to twist statistics and "facts". We have no inhibitions about distorting information because each of us regards ourself as an all-knowing God, and we have the attitude that, when we deceive somebody, we are simply helping the stupid, ignorant, and foolish people to understand "the truth". We distort information for their benefit, not ours. We distort the facts because most of the people who disagree with us are too stupid and/or ignorant to understand the issue, so we have to simplify the information for them.

“I am not distorting statistics. I am simply presenting them in a manner that you idiots can understand.”

Our attitude of distorting the facts to help the ignorant and stupid people is similar to the attitude of a man who beats his wife or children in order to help them behave better, and our attitude that punishing criminals with jail or beatings will help them become better people.

We assume that we are wonderful people when we punish people, and when we distort statistics and facts, but I would say that the people who distort information are making themselves appear untrustworthy, and they stimulate our emotions of disgust or anger, rather than stimulate us into thinking about the issue and compromising on policies.

We are arrogant creatures who want to convince other people that we are correct, and that they are wrong. We need to restrict leadership positions to people who are aware that they have these animal characteristics, and who also have enough self-control to prevent their crude cravings from influencing their behavior.

The U.S. Constitution is based on the philosophy that the ordinary people are capable of giving intelligent instructions to their submissive government representatives but, in reality, the majority of people have nothing intelligent to say about any issue. Both the conservatives and the liberals boast that they have the correct answers to life, and they blame the other group for being the source of our nation's problems, but both groups are promoting idiotic theories.

For example, at the NRA meeting in May 2018, Mike Pence claimed that our communities will become safer with "firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens", but no matter which crime statistics we look at, they all show that his theory is 100% false. For example, according to this map, 35.7% of the people in Texas own guns, but Texas has lots of murders, burglaries, rapes, kidnappings, and other crime. Texas also has lots of corrupt and incompetent government officials. At the other extreme, not many Japanese citizens own guns, but Japan has much less crime than Texas.

The charts that show where murders are occurring show that murders are much more common in certain neighborhoods, and that there is no correlation between the number of people who own guns in a neighborhood, and the number of murders in that neighborhood. Rather, what the charts show, and which the majority of people are struggling to ignore and deny, is that the neighborhoods that have people with "low-quality" genetics have more crime.

Certain neighborhoods within Houston, Detroit, and Los Angeles have high levels of crimes, whereas other neighborhoods have very low levels. Here is one site with a map to show this.

Human behavior is influenced by the environment, but our genetic characteristics are the primary factor in determining our behavior and opinions. People who have certain genetic characteristics are more likely to commit crimes than the people who have higher-quality characteristics. This is easily proven simply by pointing out that the people who commit crimes are in virtually the same environment as people who are honest.

Crime, divorce, obesity, drug abuse, envy, hatred, and other types of bad behavior are more common and more extreme in the people, families, neighborhoods, businesses, sports groups, and nations that have lower quality genetic characteristics.

Some obese people blame their obesity on being molested as a child, or because their spouse or child died unexpectedly, but a lot of people have suffered such traumatic incidents without becoming obese, alcoholic, or psychotic. The liberals are encouraging us to blame the environment for our idiotic behavior, but it is our genetics that is the primary factor in determining how we behave.

If we were to remove secrecy and analyze the organizations that have the most problems with employee theft, employee fighting, drug abuse, and obesity, we would discover that organizations are not identical in regards to these problems. We would find that undesirable behavior is more common among certain organizations.

I don't know which organizations have the worst behavior, but I would not be surprised if the people who work in gambling casinos, Hollywood, government, and strip clubs have more problems with drugs, murders, envy, hatred, and pedophilia than the people who work at IBM, Sony, and General Electric.

Furthermore, and if we look at the departments within an organization, we would find that the departments are not identical, either. For example, we might discover that within IBM, the people involved with sales or advertising have more bad behavior than the engineers and technicians.

Our behavior is the result of the genetic qualities of our brains and body. Our behavior is influenced by the environment, but our genetics give us our "personality". Our genetics determine how strong each of our emotional cravings are, and what stimulates each of our emotions, and for how long a stimulation persists. Our genetics also determines how much self-control we have, and how much the environment can influence us.

Our genetics also determines whether our liver, thyroid gland, pancreas, and other organs are functioning correctly, and if not, we may suffer from inappropriate blood chemistry, which in turn can cause our mind to malfunction, or cause us to suffer from irrational changes of emotional feelings.

Crime is the result of the human mind choosing to commit crimes. The neighborhoods that have people with better genetics will have better behavior, and the neighborhoods where the people have lower quality genetics are going to have more crime, obesity, divorce, drugs, pouting, envy, hatred, arrogance, revenge, and tantrums.

Following a leader is sensible only if you can select a leader who provides leadership.

History shows us that crime occurs regardless of whether people in the area have guns, but millions of conservatives insist that guns will stop crime.

The conservatives don't care what the evidence shows. They want to follow their leaders, not think for themselves, research issues, or look critically at their opinions. And they want leaders who tell them what they want to hear, rather than leaders who provide leadership.

Furthermore, the conservatives are terrified at the thought of experimenting with a new path, so they make excuses to avoid experimenting with different crime policies.

The liberals promote the theory that creating more restrictions for guns and bullets will reduce crime and violence, but history has proven that restrictions on guns will not stop crime, either.

For example, the UK has lots of restrictions on guns and bullets, but rather than eliminate crime and violence, the people who want to commit crimes simply use some other weapon, such as a knife, acid, or metal rod. Being stabbed with a knife or having acid thrown in your face is not necessarily better than being shot with a bullet.

Even though restrictions on weapons do not stop crime or violence, millions of liberals promote this idiotic philosophy decade after decade. As with the conservatives, the liberals don't care what the evidence shows.

Both liberals and conservatives promote the theory that we can rehabilitate criminals with punishments. A small number of criminals were so annoyed by jail that they used their unpleasant memories to stimulate themselves into exerting enough self-control to avoid committing another crime, and those particular criminals create the impression that jail has rehabilitated them.

However, the people who appear to become honest as a result of being put in jail are those who are "on the borderline" between being a criminal and an honest person. In other words, their genetic qualities are not so bad that they are hopeless.

If you have trouble understanding that concept, consider how it applies to left-handed people. Centuries ago some of the left-handed people were forced to be right-handed, and some of those people actually made the switch, thereby creating the impression that it is indeed possible to change a person through punishments and rewards.

However, the left-handed people who "became" right-handed were those who were on the border between left and right-handed. They could use both of their hands fairly well, so it was possible for them to train themselves to use their right hand. They were not the people who were extremely left-handed.

Furthermore, the left-handed people who became right-handed were not truly "cured"; rather, they simply forced themselves to use their right hand more often. They continued to have both the desire and ability to use their left hand.

In May 2018, a 22-year-old Pakistani man told his family that he wanted to get married to a woman that he was having a relationship with. His father and four brothers did not approve, and they tied him to a bed, and his father gouged out both of his eyeballs. The man asked his father to kill him, but his father replied that he wanted him to be an example for the other boys in the neighborhood.

His father and four brothers believe that cruel punishments will help other people behave properly. They did not blind him in order to torment him. Rather, his family members were wonderful people who were trying to help him and the other boys in the neighborhood realize that they should follow the correct path in life rather than wander along their own path.

What is the difference between:

• A father who gouges out his son's eyeballs in order to help his son and other boys in the neighborhood behave properly.
• A nation that promotes the theory that a "death penalty" will help people realize that they should not commit certain types of crimes.

Or how about the difference between:

• A nation that puts thieves in jail for several years in order to help them and other people behave properly.
• A nation that cuts the hand off of a thief in order to help him and other people behave properly.

Punishments are useful for influencing both animal and human behavior, but only when the punishments are trivial. For example, dogs can be trained to poop outside of the house by yelling at them. However, cruel punishments, such as gouging out the dog's eyes, would not be useful.

Trivial punishments are also very effective with humans, especially young children. Humans and other social creatures want to fit into society, so we want approval from other people. We want to see smiling faces, not frowning faces. We want to hear pleasant tones of voice, not angry, frustrated, disappointed, or sarcastic tones of voice. Therefore, it is easy to manipulate people and animals with facial expressions and tones of voice.

Everybody seems to realize that rewards and punishments can be useful for influencing human behavior, but a lot of people have trouble with the concept that everything in life has to be kept within certain limits. History has proven over and over that cruel punishments are usually detrimental because they often stimulate anger, disgust, hatred, resentment, or rebellion in some of the population, thereby increasing the chances that there will be even more violence or crime in the future.

The theory that we can reduce crime with jail, beatings, gouging out of eyeballs, cutting off of hands, and other cruel methods has proven to be false, but millions of people around the world, and all of the world's governments and police departments, continue to promote these worthless, failed policies.

History also shows that the death penalty, which millions of Americans believe in, is worthless in preventing crimes. The effect of killing a criminal is similar to the effect of killing a rat or mosquito. Specifically, it removes that particular criminal, rat, or mosquito from our lives, but it doesn't stop any of the others from causing us trouble.

Killing a criminal is similar to my suggestion of exiling them; specifically, it gets them out of our lives, but it doesn't stop other people from committing crimes. I don't recommend exiling criminals as a way of preventing crime. Rather, exiling criminals is analogous to removing weeds from a garden.

Crime is occurring even in the states that allow us to strap guns to our waist.

A variation of the theory that punishments will prevent crime is the "open carry" philosophy. (In which people display their guns in public, as in the photo.)

This theory claims that if lots of people would openly carry a gun in public, criminals would be frightened into behaving properly. This is an attempt to use fear rather than punishments to prevent crimes.

However, history shows this policy is false, also. For example, policemen openly display weapons, and so do militaries, but that has not stopped crime, corruption, or war.

Criminals prefer to commit crimes secretly and rapidly in order to reduce the chances that somebody can interfere with their plans. Therefore, the policemen and citizens with guns usually do not realize a crime has occurred until hours or days later.

Also, if a criminal were to rob a store when one of the customers is carrying a gun, as in the photo, the criminal may first disarm or kill the customer, and then rob the store.

A criminal may also take a person's gun away and shoot him with it, which happened in May 2018 to these police officers in Belgium.

As is typical of conservatives, the author of that article implies that the solution to that problem is to let the Belgian citizens carry guns. He has no interest in experimenting with new policies for crime, mental illness, or immigration.

American citizens can carry guns, but that doesn't stop criminals from killing Americans, or American policemen. However, the author of that article doesn't care about reality. He wants to believe his fantasy that guns will stop crime.

When a citizen carries a gun in public, he is essentially walking around with a neon sign that announces to the world: "I am a threat to criminals. If you want to commit a crime, you must take my gun, or disarm or kill me."

The "open carry" theory appeals to us because it satisfies one of our emotional cravings. Specifically, when animals are frightened, they want to appear powerful, so they show their teeth, growl, arch their back, or do something else to make themselves appear strong, powerful, and dangerous. They try to create fear in their opponent.

It might also help you to understand how useless punishments are if you consider how they would fail to solve alcoholism, obesity, or shyness. If we were to take a thousand obese people at random, and threaten to beat them with a wet bamboo pole, or gouge out their eyeballs, if they don't lose 50 pounds over the next three months, we would discover that some of them push themselves into losing weight.

If we then beat those who did not lose weight, or if we gouged out their eyeballs, we would discover that the next time we take a thousand obese people at random and demand that they lose weight or receive the same punishment, a slightly higher percentage will push themselves into losing weight.

The fact that some of the obese people lose weight from that punishment could lead us to the conclusion that we can help some of the obese people lose weight by "making an example" of some of them by beating them or gouging out their eyeballs. However, that policy is effective only for some of the obese people, and, even worse, it would create a miserable environment for everybody.

Punishing obese people cannot convert them into normal people. The people who are obese are genetically inferior in some manner compared to those of us who are not obese, and punishments cannot improve their low-quality genes. Although some obese people will lose weight when punished, the ideal way to eliminate obesity is to restrict reproduction to the people who don't have the problem so that every generation has less trouble with obesity.

The reason we are attracted to the concept that we can reduce crime by punishing criminals is because we evolved from animals. We inherited their emotional craving to bite, scratch, and kick an animal that misbehaves.

The reason we are attracted to the concept of "open carry" is because we inherited the craving of animals to intimidate and frighten other creatures.

During prehistoric times, it made sense for the humans to do whatever their emotions wanted, but today it is absurd. We must restrict influential positions to the minority of people who can see the animal qualities of humans, and who have enough self-control to prevent their crude emotional cravings from influencing their decisions.

We enjoy hurting people who have irritated us, but a society that uses cruel punishments in an attempt to cure or reduce bad behavior is creating an unpleasant social environment for everybody. Furthermore, some punishments are a serious burden on society. For example, American jails are very expensive to operate.

Nothing is going to improve as long as we continue to allow the majority of people to dominate our government systems, economy, schools, crime policies, and social activities. The majority of people will give us emotionally titillating policies, but they will be worthless or detrimental. We need to create intelligent policies. The majority of people need to be told to shut up.

It is important to note that many of the adults who committed a terrible crime gave us plenty of warnings that there was something wrong with their mind and/or attitude. For example, many of them were badly behaved as children, or they showed antisocial behavior, or they became adults who had trouble forming friendships, holding a job, following rules, or enjoying life. Some of them committed hundreds of "small" crimes.

When farmers notice that some of their animals are behaving strangely, they investigate rather than make excuses to ignore it. Unfortunately, we have a strong tendency to feel sorry for the misfit humans rather than regard them as potential dangers. We are especially likely to feel sorry for children with strange behavior, and men have a strong tendency to ignore the strange behavior of pretty women.

Who is to blame when a person commits a murder after repeatedly showing us signs that he is miserable, angry, neurotic, lonely, or violent? Becoming angry at the criminal does not help us.

A more sensible reaction to crime is to eliminate secrecy and keep a database of everybody's life. We should be observing children for signs of unusual behavior. Farmers perform quality control on their plants and animals, and we need to do the same with humans. This requires providing our societies with leaders who can accept the evidence that humans are a collage of genetic characteristics, and that we are all defective and imperfect.

The U.S. Constitution doesn't give citizens the right to free medical or dental care, so if a parent wants to ensure that his child is in good physical and mental health, the parents have to pay a dentist and a doctor to analyze the child.

In the society I suggest, the government regards children as the next generation of people, rather than as the personal toys of parents, and so the government would be responsible for taking care of the children. The government would provide parents with whatever products and services they need for their children, such as food, clothing, schools, and activities, as well as medical and dental services.

The Quality Control department of the government would routinely put children through medical tests, and pass judgment on their physical and mental health. The children who displayed unusual or undesirable behavior would be investigated to see if there is something in their environment that needs to be changed, or whether their strange behavior is due to their genetic characteristics, in which case the government would have to pass judgment on whether the child should be restricted to certain schools or neighborhoods, or evicted before he becomes troublesome.

Years ago I pointed out here that my ability to run became increasingly worse when I became a teenager. By maintaining a database of everybody's life, and by having computers constantly scanning the database to identify people who seem different, the Quality Control Department would be able to identify children like me for further investigation. The doctors would notice that some of us have problems that can be corrected to a certain extent with medical technology or changes in diet.

The doctors would also realize that some children have bad behavior for reasons that nobody can understand or correct. Society would have to pass judgment on whether those children should be restricted to their own neighborhoods, or evicted from the city.

Unfortunately, dealing with badly behaved children will be emotionally traumatic for the leaders of society, the law enforcement agencies, and the parents. However, ignoring the issue causes emotional trauma also because it allows the badly behaved children to irritate us and commit crimes, and they often grow up to be adults who are even more destructive and irritating. We are going to suffer either way, so we should do what makes the most sense, which is dealing with the misfits while they are young.

Can you push yourself into becoming one of the pioneers who are willing to experiment with a new policy for crime?

Neither the liberals nor the conservatives are interested in science, genetics, reality, or finding evidence to support their theories. Both groups promote theories that they are emotionally attracted to, rather than create theories that are based on evidence.

If I am correct that liberals and conservatives want to follow an emotionally pleasant fantasy, you might wonder why both groups don't end up following the same pleasant fantasy since both groups are the same species of humans with the same emotions. Why do the two groups promote different philosophies when they are essentially the same creature?

It's also important to note that no matter which society we look at, and no matter what era we look at, we find that most of the population in every society can be broken into two primary categories, which we could describe as "liberals" and "conservatives". Why do most people divide into those two particular categories? The following sections will discuss this issue. To summarize it, the conservatives promote the philosophy of a prehistoric man, whereas the liberals promote the philosophy of a prehistoric mother or child.

Although stereotypes are unrealistic, dividing things into categories can help us understand their characteristics, similarities, and differences. For example, I think it helps us understand why conservatives developed their particular view of life, and liberals have developed a slightly different view.

I would describe the conservative attitude as being similar to that of a male animal, and the liberals as similar in attitude to a mother or a child. I think this view of conservatives and liberals will help you understand how the crude emotional cravings in a monkey evolved into the philosophies that people today are promoting. Consider the difference in attitude between a prehistoric man and a prehistoric woman or child.

The prehistoric men had a desire to go out into the world each day to search for food, and to defend themselves and their family from predators and neighboring tribes. Their world was dangerous, and so they had a strong craving to follow traditions. They would eat the foods that their ancestors ate rather than experiment with new foods, and they would make tools in the traditions that their ancestors made them rather than experiment with new methods.

The prehistoric women, by comparison, would stay "at home" and wait for their husband to bring them food, tools, and furs. When they were hungry, they would look around their campsite for food, and when they wanted tools or furs, they would sometimes create them, but their primary method of acquiring food, tools, and furs was to ask, or beg, or cry to their husband. The women were passive creatures who waited for the men to give them things.

The children, by comparison, did not do much to take care of themselves. When they wanted food, clothing, or other items, they would ask their mother, or they would beg or cry for it. They would also have tantrums if they were upset.

When humans settled down into permanent cities, the majority of men continued to have the attitude that men should leave home every day to work, bring food and other items to their wife and children, and follow tradition rather than experiment with the unknown. The men began working in teams much more often, and that required they follow rules and time schedules.

Although the men would work together, their primary concern was themselves and their family, not the other men. They were in a competitive battle with other men for food, land, women, and material items. As with male animals, the men did not have much pity for the men who were losers in the competitive battle. Their attitudes towards life evolved into what we know as the conservative attitude.

The women also continued to follow their prehistoric attitudes, which was to remain at home and wait for the men to bring them food and material items. The children continued to spend their time playing during the day, and when they wanted food or other items, they would ask or beg for it, or they would cry or have tantrums. The attitudes of the women and children evolved into the liberal philosophy.

To complicate the issue, after people settled into cities, it became easier for people with serious genetic disorders to survive through crime and begging. Those people would be attracted to the liberal philosophy, and they would "contaminate" the liberal philosophy by pushing for pity for criminals and weirdos.

As the cities became larger, the people did not know each other as intimately, which made it easier for people with behavioral problems to attract a spouse and successfully reproduce. These socially defective people were ashamed of themselves, and they worried that if people knew the truth about them, nobody would want them as a friend or spouse, so they pushed the liberal philosophy into advocating secrecy.

Both conservatives and liberals prefer pleasant fantasies over reality, but because conservatives are so similar to prehistoric men, they prefer following ancient traditions, superstitions, and religions.

The liberals, by comparison, are like women and children who will follow anybody, so they often pick up fantasies from Star Trek movies, video games, romantic novels, television cartoons, Sigmund Freud, or Karl Marx.

The liberals are more likely than the conservatives to behave like Melynda Moon, (photo to the right), who had surgery to make her ears pointed so that she can imagine herself living in the type of fantasy that she picked up from fiction authors.

Some people have described the Republican Party as the "angry white man's club". I think they appear to be angry only when compared to liberals. I think they actually have the attitude of a prehistoric man, which is not an attitude of anger. It is the attitude of male animals all over the planet.

Male animals try to feed themselves and their family, and they show no concern about the welfare or safety of other creatures. This creates the impression that males are selfish and cruel, but they are actually dedicated slaves to their family. They regard life as a competitive battle, and they have no pity for the losers. Furthermore, they fight with intruders to their territory, but they do not fight because they are violent, selfish, or cruel. Rather, they are trying to protect themselves and their family.

Their lack of pity for the losers, and their fighting with other creatures, creates the illusion that male animals are violent, cruel, and selfish. In reality, they are incredibly generous; their entire life is spent trying to take care of their family.

Our distant, male ancestors would have been very similar in behavior and attitude to the male animals. The men were in competition with one another for food, women, and status. They were also struggling with nature, and they had to fight neighboring tribes. They would not have had any pity for the losers in the competitive battle for life.

Although the men worked together, and were friends and relatives of one another, the primary concern of each man was feeding himself and his family, not feeding the losers, or the neighboring tribes.

When food was plentiful, the men would be willing to share it, but food is rarely plentiful in a prehistoric environment. Every animal reproduces excessively, resulting in a shortage of food, which in turn means that most of the children must die before they become an adult. The animals that are successful in this battle for life are those who put their effort into feeding their own children, and who can ignore the death of other children.

The successful male animals have no trouble providing their family with a meal while other animals nearby are starving to death. This is not cruelty. This selfish attitude is the only sensible policy for animals.

The conservative humans behave just like the male animals. For example, there are lots of wealthy conservatives who can enjoy a wonderful meal in a luxurious home, even when they can look out their window and see a family that is hungry, cold, and homeless. The attitude of a male animal is essentially, "We are in a competitive battle for life, and you must take care of yourself. Don't expect me to take care of you. I am not responsible for your life." Male animals evolved this attitude for the simple reason that the animals with that attitude were more successful than those that shared their food.

When our prehistoric ancestors settled down into permanent cities, the men who were dominant in society created the laws and set the social environment. They had the attitude of male animals; specifically, that everybody was expected to take care of themselves and their family. If somebody failed to take care of himself, they regarded his suffering as his own tough luck.

The liberals, by comparison, want a government that has the attitude of a mother or a child. They want the government to pamper and care for the citizens, just like a mother does. The people who are most likely to become liberals are those who either have the attitude of a child, which is to be taken care of, or they have the attitude of a mother, which is to take care of children.

The liberals feel sorry for even the most badly behaved criminals, misfits, and retards, just as a mother feels sorry for even the most defective of her children. When children misbehave, a mother will try to fix her child's bad behavior with punishments, rewards, or some other type of rehabilitation program or psychological counseling. Likewise, the liberal attitude towards bad behavior is for the government to help the person with punishments, rewards, rehabilitation, or counseling.

If a child is not interested in doing yard work or cleaning his room, some mothers will do the work and let the child play. The mothers and children who have that attitude are likely to prefer a government that follows the same philosophy. They will not want the government to force anybody to work. Rather, as with Marxism and communism, they will want each citizen to be free to do whatever he wants to do, and the government somehow does the jobs that nobody wants.

Since most people will divide themselves into either conservatives or liberals, every society has had these two groups of people fighting with each other over what their society will be.

To make the situation more confusing, by settling into permanent cities, people with serious genetic disorders were able to survive and reproduce. These misfits are likely to promote the more extreme liberal attitudes because they are likely to get involved with crime, and because they have a difficult time making a living. They want pity, handouts, and forgiveness. They are the most likely to promote Marxism, anarchy, and communism.

As with animals, our prehistoric ancestors devoted their life to raising children. They did not need to be concerned about overpopulation, overcrowding, abortion, or euthanasia because the defective and excess children were killed by nature. The children that survived to adulthood were in good mental and physical shape. There were no retards, Siamese twins, or lunatics.

After settling into permanent cities, however, the situation changed significantly. Cities allowed defective people to survive and reproduce, and as technology improved, even more of the defective people could survive. However, no society has bothered to deal with this issue. Everybody is ignoring it.

The end result is that in every nation today, a certain percentage of the population has a home, lots of food, and lots of material items, while all around the city there are people who are starving to death, homeless, or suffering in some other manner. This creates an unpleasant social environment for everybody, but neither the conservatives nor the liberals have an intelligent solution.

The conservatives tend to ignore the misfits, just as our prehistoric ancestors did, but when we do that today, we allow the misfits to ruin our cities and our lives by living in our streets, pestering us for food and money, using our cities as toilets, and committing crimes.

The liberals tend to feel sorry for the misfits, but when we do that, we make the situation worse by allowing them to reproduce in larger numbers, thereby increasing their quantity every year. India is a good example of how the liberal philosophy will ruin a society (photo).

Furthermore, by allowing misfits to live among us, both conservatives and liberals allow crime networks to kidnap and purchase the misfit children, offer them for sale, and then blackmail their customers. They can then put those blackmailed puppets into the government, police departments, media, schools, and businesses, thereby giving crime networks a tremendous influence over society.

During the past century, technology has become so advanced that a new problem is becoming significant. Specifically, in order to make a living today, people need advanced skills, and they need an ability to work at modern jobs. Every year there are fewer people with the desire and/or ability to handle a modern job.

In the USA, for example, there are supposedly 95 million people who are out of work. Although some of them would be able to get jobs if we were to develop a better economic system, and some of them are mothers with children, there are a lot of people who simply don't have the desire and/or ability to work at many of the modern jobs. We are not going to solve this problem by ignoring it, or by feeling sorry for the people.

Unfortunately, neither the conservatives nor the liberals are capable of dealing with the modern problem of misfits. We have to tell both groups of people to shut up. The only sensible solution to this problem is to start restricting reproduction so that there are fewer misfits in every generation.

All aspects of human behavior are due to our genetic design. The environment is only an influence over us, and only to the extent that our genetic characteristics allow it to influence us. For example, our brain has the ability to remember information, recall information, and think about the information. This ability allows us to benefit from an education, which in turn has a significant effect over our skills, language, clothing styles, leisure activities, and view of the world.

An animal that does not have the genetic ability to remember information or think about that information is not going to be able to benefit from an education. Likewise, the humans that have inferior abilities to learn, recall information, and/or think are not going to be able to benefit as much from an education as the people with better genetic abilities.

Everything about our personality is the result of our DNA. The types of food, colors, sounds, government systems, economic systems, and other things that we are attracted to or repelled by is due to our genetic characteristics. We are attracted to the concepts that appeal to our emotions, and we are repelled by the sights, smells, philosophies, and other things that stimulate unpleasant emotions.

Our emotions and our intellect are genetic, not environmental, so there is no way we can alter what a person is attracted to or repelled by. For example, we are repelled by the smell of our waste products, and we cannot change that characteristic through the environment, such as by punishing people, offering them rewards, or putting them through rehabilitation programs.

The conservative philosophy did not come from the environment. It developed to appease our genetic, emotional characteristics. It is the result of the male emotional craving to compete for food and status, and to raise a family.

The liberal attitude is also the result of genetics. It is the result of the genetic attitude that we see in mothers and children.

Statistics about liberals and conservatives give me the impression that children are more likely to be liberals. I don't know if that's true, but it would make sense.

The adults who tend to react to problems by whining, pouting, and tantrums, are likely to be attracted to the liberal attitude that the government should pity and pamper the citizens.

A child has a significantly different personality than an adult. Specifically, children want to be taken care of and pampered. They expect food, toys, clothing, and everything else they want, to be given to them, and without any obligations. They do not have any interest in working for what they want. Rather, when they want something, they cry, beg for it, or demand it.

Children want to "play", not "work". They want praise, not criticism. Children have an attitude that is very similar to the philosophy promoted by Marxism. As a result, I would expect children to be attracted to philosophies that are similar to Marxism.

There are some children who make such remarks as "I am a conservative", but do they understand what they are saying? Children have a strong craving to mimic other people, and they frequently say things that they don't understand. A child has the attitude of a liberal, despite what they say.

As a boy becomes an adult, his brain is supposed to alter its emotional circuitry. Specifically, he should lose his interest in playing, and he should develop an interest in doing useful work. He should also lose his interest in tantrums, crying, and begging for the food and other things he wants, and develop a desire to take care of himself, a wife, and a family. An adult man should not expect or want other people to take care of him.

A young girl will also go through emotional changes as she becomes an adult. As with young boys, young girls expect to be pampered, and they will cry and have tantrums when they want something. However, unlike boys, the girls do not develop an interest in becoming self-sufficient. As a girl becomes an adult woman, she continues to want pampering, but she expects it from her husband rather than her parents. They also develop a strong craving to raise and protect children.

I would not be surprised if a lot of young boys are attracted to the liberal philosophy since that would be more compatible with their attitude of spending each day playing while somebody else takes care of them. However, as the boys become adults, if they develop properly, they should become more attracted to the conservative attitude that everybody should take care of themselves.

Because of genetic diversity, boys do not go through exactly the same emotional changes as they become adults. Some adult men retain more of certain childish characteristics. An adult man with certain, unusually strong childish characteristics may find the liberal philosophy the most appealing. For example:

• The men who do not want to work for a living are likely to be attracted to the liberal attitude that the government should provide welfare programs, or lots of simple jobs in the government.
• The men who have trouble controlling their spending of money will be attracted to the liberal philosophy of a government that forgives them of their debts.
• The men who cannot behave properly will be attracted to the liberal philosophy of a government that feels sorry for criminals and gives them second and third chances.

All of us have problems, but some people have such serious genetic disorders that they have trouble holding jobs, forming friendships, and coping with the stress of life. Some people have such serious genetic problems that they are miserable every day, or suffering from wild mood swings, or hallucinating, and they rarely enjoy life. Those miserable misfits are likely to be attracted to the liberal philosophy because they are likely to want a government that treats them like a mother who loves and pampers her child no matter how disgusting he is.

The liberals with serious mental disorders are giving liberals a bad image. Those misfits get more attention than the better behaved liberals because they are often whining, participating in obnoxious protests, throwing rocks at the police, dressing like slobs, and behaving in lewd manners. The better behaved liberals are rarely noticed.

For example, consider the protests in the city streets. Only a small minority of liberals are participating in those protests, and I suspect that the liberals who choose to participate are some of the worst behaved, and most mentally disturbed.

When the liberals stage a protest, the better behaved liberals remain at home, and the badly behaved liberals run out into the streets to throw rocks at the police, shout angry and obnoxious insults, set garbage containers on fire, and assault people, as in the photo below, which is one photo in a sequence that shows a man with a stick who runs over to beat an old man who was knocked down. Other liberals are watching or taking photos rather than try to stop the beating.

The liberals justify their violence on the grounds that they are protecting us from Nazis, Fascists, sexists, anti-Semites, racists, bigots, white supremacists, and other "evil" people, but their violence is not protecting any of us from anything. Rather, the liberals are behaving like obnoxious, angry children who are having a temper tantrum. However, since they are adults, they are much stronger than children, and so they are much more destructive than a child.

The firing of James Damore in 2017 by the Google management is another example of how the mentally disturbed people are giving liberals a bad image. The CEO of Google, Sundar Pichai, lied to the public when he said that Damore had caused a disruption in the company. There was no disruption. Damore had merely expressed his support of an opinion that is so popular around the world and throughout history that all adults are well aware of it. Nobody is surprised or disrupted when somebody expresses that particular opinion.

To be more accurate, some liberals and feminists will indeed become upset when a person expresses that particular opinion, but we should not feel guilty about that. It is not our fault that they become upset, and it is not our responsibility to comfort them, either.

To understand this concept, consider a more extreme example. Imagine if there was a group of religious fanatics who had a particular mental disorder that caused them to have a tantrum whenever somebody said that they do not believe that there is such a place as heaven. In such a case, whenever somebody criticized the concept of heaven, those religious fanatics would have a tantrum.

If you were in control of society, what advice would you provide the people? Would you announce, "If you don't believe in heaven, remain silent so that you don't upset the people who believe in it."

My opinion is that we should create policies that are the best for society, rather than appease a particular person or group of people. How does a society benefit by telling people to keep quiet about their opinion about heaven? It would be more sensible to encourage people to use their freedom of speech and discuss all types of issues, and to regard the people who cannot handle discussions as intellectually or emotionally inferior.

From the point of view of society, discussions are valuable, and telling people to remain silent is detrimental. The people who cannot handle freedom of speech are disruptive to society, and they should be restricted to certain neighborhoods, or evicted from the city. We should not pander to them, feel sorry for them, or tolerate their violent tantrums.

At the same time that Sundar Pichai fired Damore for expressing a common opinion, he did nothing about his employees who were teaching one another "How to punch a Nazi". I would not classify that material as "freedom of speech". I would classify those documents as detrimental to society. Those documents are examples of how a society must pass judgment on when people are contributing something of value, and when they are encouraging hatred, pouting, and other detrimental behavior.

Neither the conservatives nor the liberals can provide us with appropriate philosophies for this modern world. Both groups are promoting philosophies that evolved for animals, and which were appropriate thousands of years ago, but which are idiotic for this modern world.

The conservative attitude was appropriate during prehistoric times because it fit the environment in which men were struggling with nature for survival. In this modern world, however, that crude attitude is creating a miserable environment. For example, the conservatives support a free enterprise system in which people must compete for the basic necessities of life, just as animals have to compete for food. This economic system creates an unpleasant social environment, and it causes businesses to fight with each other rather than cooperate, and to pander to the majority of people rather than develop products that are the most sensible.

The battle for money causes employees to become frightened of losing their job, and this in turn causes other problems, such as professors who demand tenure; employees who deliberately delay or sabotage their work so that they have "job security"; and automobile mechanics who sabotage a customer's car so that they can get more work in the future. It also results in people who promote nepotism, inheritances, and sycophantic behavior. It also results in many single women becoming overly concerned about a man's income rather than be primarily concerned about his compatibility.

The emphasis on money also stimulates the competitive nature of men to make money, which I would describe as a waste of life. We don't benefit by competing to gather the largest pile of material items, the largest home, or the most expensive yacht. It would be more sensible to compete to bring improvements to our city, our lives, and our world.

The liberal philosophy is even more inappropriate than the conservative philosophy. The liberal philosophy of having somebody take care of us, and for us to beg or cry when we want something, was appropriate for prehistoric mothers and children. The reason was because each woman had a man who spent every day as a slave to provide his family with food, clothing, tools, and protection.

Unfortunately, the attitude of a prehistoric mother and child cannot be applied to a modern organization because an organization does not have the equivalent of a father or husband.

Animals do not have a desire to work, or a desire to earn what they want. An animal works only when it is emotionally stimulated into working, such as when it is hungry or thirsty. Without that emotional stimulation, an animal will lay on the ground and take a nap. If animals could speak to us, they would tell us that their goal in life is to retire and have servants provide them with food, water, and whatever else they want.

The reason humans fantasize about becoming wealthy, retiring, and being pampered by servants is because we are animals who have no desire to work, or to earn what we want. We have attractions to food, but not to farming. We have attractions to material wealth, but not to working in a factory, or learning engineering. Men have a strong craving for sex, but we don't have any craving to study men and women and then use that knowledge to alter our behavior so that we can form a stable, pleasant relationship with a woman.

We have a lot of cravings for a lot of things, but we don't have cravings to learn, think, discuss issues, compromise, look critically at ourselves, or work. This is why every government is under pressure to allow inheritances, trust funds, alimony, tenure, lotteries, and special tax privileges. We want somebody else to do the work. We want handouts. We all want to be treated special. However, we differ in how strongly we want handouts, and how willing we are to work.

If every human had a strong emotional craving to work and contribute to society, then none of us would fantasize about becoming wealthy, retiring, or being pampered by servants. None of us would want handouts, inheritances, lotteries, or special tax privileges. Instead, we would want to take care of ourselves. We would be attracted to a society in which everybody learns a useful skill and contributes some useful work. Furthermore, we would enjoy sharing the chores rather than expect somebody else to do them for us.

There are so many adults and children who want to avoid work, and who want to be pampered, that every wealthy society is using foreigners as a source of cheap labor. I think this is creating a miserable social environment, and it is likely to destroy a society because the servants are likely to eventually outnumber the original residents.

I think the best solution to this problem is to restrict leadership positions to people who are willing to share in the chores and earn what they want, rather than people who want to be pampered and treated special. This includes the leaders of businesses, schools, and other organizations, not just the government.

The world today is dominated by people who want to be pampered Kings and Queens, and they want their children to have special treatment, also. I suggest we start regarding those people as crude, selfish, and unacceptable. I suggest we experiment with getting rid of our monkey-like social environment in which we pamper our leaders and their family members.

Teaching children to be submissive to a person simply because that person was born into a certain family (as in the photo) is encouraging crude, destructive behavior.

Children should be taught that the people in leadership positions have a responsibility to provide us with intelligent guidance and supervision, and that their spouse and children are not to be given any special treatment or pampering.

Children should be taught that people in leadership positions are "employees of society", not Kings or Queens, and that the citizens have a responsibility to give them routine job performance reviews, pass judgment on which of them are doing the least to help society, and routinely replace the leaders who are doing the least so that somebody else has an opportunity to test his leadership skills.

If citizens had that type of attitude, they would create a society in which the leadership is changing and improving through the years. We would have a government that we respect, admire, and learn from. We would have leaders who have the desire and talent to do something beneficial for society rather than be pampered with material wealth and services.

A nation requires a certain number of people to produce food, build and maintain homes, and work in factories. Who among us is going to learn the necessary skills and do the necessary work?

At one extreme are the liberals who promote Marxism. They want each person to decide for himself whether he will work. If a person does not want to work, or if he has trouble finding or holding a job, they want the government to provide him with welfare programs.

At the other extreme are the conservatives who promote the attitude that everybody should work, but we should be able to make enough money so that we can hire servants to do the work that we don't want to do. And they also promote the attitude that wealthy people should be able to give lots of money to their spouse and children so that they don't have to work.

Both the liberals and the conservatives are promoting the concept that it is acceptable for us to use other people to do the work that we don't want to do. The difference between the liberals and the conservatives is that the conservatives want each person to pay for his servants, whereas the liberals want the government to take some food and material items from the people who are working, and distribute it to the people who are not working.

The conservatives boast that they are better than the liberals because they are paying for their servants rather than demanding government handouts, but that policy is inadvertently hurting the nation by providing lots of unskilled labor jobs for stupid, uneducated, and criminal immigrants and refugees. Furthermore, many conservatives don't care whether the immigrants are in the country legally, so they are providing jobs for illegal immigrants.

One of the reasons that millions of conservatives voted for Trump is because they want Trump to build a wall along our border with Mexico in order to stop people from getting into our nation illegally. However, the conservatives are the primary reason that both legal and illegal immigrants want to get into our nation.

Although there are some liberals offering jobs to immigrants, most of the people who are hiring immigrants are conservatives who own businesses, or who want maids or gardeners for their excessively large homes, or who want nannies because they are too lazy to care for their own children and/or too busy showing off their wealth at parties and social events. Furthermore, most of the landlords who are renting homes to the immigrants are also conservatives.

We cannot stop immigrants from coming into this nation when millions of businesses and citizens are offering them jobs and homes. We must change our attitudes towards life and stop using other people as cheap labor.

We should stop admiring the wealthy people who have servants and start regarding them as having crude qualities that are unacceptable for modern society. We should instead admire the men and women who are willing to pick up their litter, clean up after themselves, and participate in the chores that need to be done.

We have to expect babies and young children to be parasitic and demand that we provide them with food, a home, and other items, but we should stop the practice of pampering teenagers and adults.

The wealthy nations today are using poor, uneducated, and stupid people as a source of cheap labor, and this allows us to produce food and material items at a lower cost, and it allows more people to afford a gardener, maid, or nanny, but it creates a miserable social environment, and since the poor people tend to reproduce in large numbers, the immigrants and idiots will eventually dominate.

The people who are currently rising to leadership positions are those who have abnormally intense cravings for status, material wealth, and pampering. They are not people who want to clean up after themselves, participate in the making of their meals, help to grow or harvest food, or do their own laundry.

I think we would create a significantly more pleasant and stable society if we changed our attitude towards "work". We should stop promoting the attitude that happiness comes from avoiding work, acquiring large piles of material items, and being pampered by servants. We should stop referring to some jobs as "nigger work".

We should change what we regard to be a "good job" and a "bad job". Our emotions are attracted to certain jobs more than others, but the jobs that we are not attracted to should not be described as "bad jobs". If a job is beneficial to society, it should be regarded as a "good job". We should regard a job as "bad" when it has no value to society, or if it is detrimental. For example, people who create advertisements to manipulate children into purchasing a particular candy bar should be described as having a "bad job".

Since we evolved from monkeys, we have a strong craving to be pampered, and avoid work, but we need to start exerting self-control and restricting positions of leadership to the men who will join us in doing chores, and who do not expect us to pamper them, their spouse, or their children. A society should not have any type of "Royal family," or any "celebrities". We should treat everybody in society as "friends" and "coworkers".

To summarize this section of the document, most people are promoting political and social philosophies that are based on their crude, emotional cravings, and although those philosophies were practical during prehistoric times, they are inappropriate today.

The conservatives want a society in which everybody is carrying weapons and battling one another for money and food, and the liberals want to create a society in which everybody is treated as a child.

We need to exert some self-control and design an economic system, government system, and other social technology, according to what is intellectually sensible, not according to what our emotions are attracted to.

The prehistoric attitude towards life was:

Regard other people as potential dangers, and fight with them for food, a spouse, land, and water.

With our modern technology, our attitude today should be:

Regard other people as potential friends, and compete with them to improve our cities, material items, farms, parks, foot paths, swimming pools, clothing, meals, and social activities.

We currently assume that people who are wealthy and famous are "better" people, but in some cases the wealthy and famous people seem to have severe emotional defects. For example, Elon Musk admits to suffering from mental disorders. I suspect that a lot of wealthy and famous people are suffering from serious mental problems, and that that is the reason why they developed such an intense obsession with wealth and fame.

That article about Elon musk mentions that Dennis Miller, who was the CEO of a large business, suspects that his bipolar mental problem gave him "extraordinary energy to achieve my life goals and exceed beyond my wildest imagination".

From his point of view, his mental problem gave him "extraordinary energy", but I think that from the point of view of a person in better mental health, his bipolar problem gave him a "neurotic obsession", or an "insane craving", or an "extreme feeling of misery".

Because we are arrogant creatures, we try to interpret all of our mental disorders as wonderful or interesting "characteristics". A person with bipolar problems, for example, will prefer to regard his mental problem as providing him with "extraordinary energy", rather than as causing him so much misery that he wasted his life struggling to be wealthy in the hope that material items would bring him some happiness.

If Dennis Miller had been born with a higher quality brain, he would not have developed such intense cravings for wealth and fame. He would have behaved more like the rest of us. Specifically, he would have spent more of his time enjoying people, life, and activities.

There is no correct way to interpret life. Everybody is arrogant, so we all assume that our interpretation is the correct one, but just as one person can interpret a sound as "laurel" and another person interprets it as "yanny", a person with bipolar disorders might interpret his mental problem as giving him energy to achieve his goal of extreme wealth, but I would say that his mental problem actually caused him to be miserable, and that his suffering caused him to develop the idiotic goal in life of becoming extremely wealthy.

The world is not going to benefit by having more people with bipolar problems, or who want to be treated as Kings and Queens, or who want their children to get special pampering. We need more people who truly enjoy life, can be trusted, will work with us, and will share in life's chores.

We should not regard a person as "successful" simply because he has acquired a lot of fame or material items. We need to judge people according to whether they are truly enjoying their life and making life pleasant for other people. People who are searching for happiness are suffering from something. And people who are irritating the people they come into contact with are detrimental.

These concepts apply to athletes, also. For example, we should not assume that an athlete who wins lots of competitions is a better person than an athlete who doesn't win very many. Just like wealthy people, some athletes seem to be successful because they are suffering from mental disorders that cause them to put abnormal amounts of time and effort into training and competing, or who have abnormally intense cravings to win competitive battles. Michael Phelps admits to suffering from mental problems, but is he the only athlete with such serious problems?

Whether an athlete is successful also depends upon his self-control. For example, an athlete who reacts to losing a competition by having a temper tantrum, crying, blaming other people for his troubles, or cheating is not going to be a very successful athlete, even if he has exceptionally good genetic characteristics.

I don't personally know any professional athletes, but I've seen interviews of some of them, and I have noticed that one of the characteristics they all have in common is that when they fail, they don't spend much time hating, pouting, sabotaging their competitors, or being envious of their competitors. They don't blame their coach, either, or the weather, or the judges. Instead, they look critically at themselves, and they try to improve their performance.

Even more important, notice how athletes react when they are criticized by their coach. The successful athletes don't have temper tantrums. They don't whine, "You are a bully! You always make critical remarks, and you never say anything nice to me. I work hard, but you never give me any praise. Instead, you are always criticizing."

In order to be among the best athletes, a person needs more than the genetic talent. He must also have the ability to reach his maximum potential. That requires that he be capable of improving his performance. That in turn requires that he be capable of looking critically at himself, and that he be able to experiment with ways to improve his performance.

The people who become successful in athletics want to find a coach who knows more about food, training, and nutrition than they do, and who can provide them with critical analyses and guidance. They do not want a coach who gives them praise and candy bars. They want a coach to help them improve their performance, so if their performance does not improve, they look for a new coach.

By comparison, the ordinary person reacts to criticism with silence, anger, hatred, or pouting. They don't appreciate constructive criticism, and they will not use criticism to improve themselves. Rather, they want us, and their leaders, to give them gifts, candy bars, praise, and forgiveness for their bad behavior.

The ordinary person spends a lot of his time complaining that he is being mistreated, unappreciated, bullied, and abused. They whine about not having much freedom, not being provided with opportunities, and not being treated fairly. They don't look for ways to improve their life; rather, they look for pity; they look for excuses for their failures and bad behavior; and they look for people or events to blame for their problems.

The same concepts apply to scientists and engineers. What makes some scientists and engineers more productive than others? It is not simply their intelligence and education. It is also their personalities. For example, an engineer who is frightened of the unknown and wants to follow his ancestors might do a wonderful job of making a small version of an existing refrigerator because that job requires him to modify a product that other engineers have already created. However, that engineer might be a failure if put on a team that has to explore new technology and experiment with a completely new product. If he cannot control his fear of the unknown, he will resist "radical" and "unproven" ideas.


For another example, consider scientists who analyze the universe. Some of them have impressive abilities with physics and math, but notice at how many of them have come to the conclusion that the universe was created in a "Big Bang".

The Big Bang Theory doesn't explain anything about the universe. For example, it claims that the universe is 14 billion years old, but what was here prior to that? And how long did that empty void exist before the universe decided to create itself? And how did that empty void get created? And why did the universe create itself in this particular location of the empty void rather than some other location thousands of light years away from here?

The universe is so mysterious that I seriously wonder if any human has the intelligence necessary to understand it. Nothing about the universe makes any sense to me. Answering one question just creates another. For some examples:

• It makes no sense for the universe to have existed forever. How can something exist if it was never created? If the universe has existed forever, it is not 14 billion years old. Rather, it is already infinite in age, and each year that passes is adding another year to infinity. Does that make sense?

• It makes no sense that the universe was created because that means it was created from something, and by some outside influence, but where did that substance come from? And how long did that substance exist before it converted itself into the universe? And what was the substance that it was created from? Did all of the substance convert into the universe? Or is some of that substance still unconverted, floating around somewhere? And what was the influence that caused the creation to take place at that particular time? These questions go on and on, infinitely.

• It makes no sense that the universe is infinite in size, but it also makes no sense that the universe is finite because that requires a boundary, which implies that there is something on the other side of the boundary. This brings up the question of what is on the other side of the boundary, and where is the boundary to that area? And what is on the other side of that second boundary? These questions go on infinitely.

The Big Bang Theory cannot answer any of these questions. Therefore, how can it be considered an explanation of the universe? The only people who will regard The Big Bang Theory as an answer to how the universe was created are those who are afraid of the unknown and want an answer to their questions.

When I think about the universe, it reminds me of looking into a set of mirrors that are reflecting one another's reflection. I don't see any answers. I only see questions that go on and on, forever.

Unfortunately, our emotions are frightened by the dark, the unknown, and the mysterious. Only a small minority of us have the ability to control our fear of the unknown well enough to handle such mysteries.

Most people want all of their questions to have answers; they want every cave that they walk into to be brightly lit and have a limit to its size so that they can see its extents; and they want to restrict their exploration of life to whatever they are familiar with.

A lot of scientists are attracted to The Big Bang Theory because it essentially seals off a dark cave that seems endless, and turns on a bright light. Our emotions do not like dark, endless, mysterious caves. We want to know what is around us. We want answers to our questions.

The more frightened of the unknown a scientist is, the more likely he is to cling to a theory that gives him an answer to his questions, even if it is a stupid answer. In order for scientists to reach their maximum potential, they must be able to control their fear of the unknown. They must be able to walk into a dark, mysterious cave without trembling in fear.

The scientists who study humans have an additional problem to deal with. Specifically, in addition to being able to handle the unknown, they must be capable of looking critically at themselves and the human race. They must have the emotional ability to face the possibility that a human is a species of monkey.

Unless a scientist can control his emotions well enough to consider that he is nothing more than a monkey with a college education, he is going to distort all of his theories to fit his arrogant view of what a human is. He will develop stupid theories, such as that Cro-Magnon man popped up suddenly 30,000 years ago, which is just a variation of biblical creation theory. The scientists who promote that theory are ignoring what should be a very obvious fact; specifically, that Cro-Magnon man must have evolved from a more primitive creature, and over a very long period of time. And that there would have been lots of interbreeding and rape between the different species of humans.

It is not stupidity that causes scientists to propose idiotic theories. It is their lack of self-control. In order to reach your genetic, intellectual potential, you need to suppress your emotions.

If there was some machine that could read our DNA and truly measure our intellectual abilities, I suspect that we would discover that there are millions of people in the world today who are more intelligent than I am, but those people never reach their potential because their lack of self-control is interfering with their thinking.

The lack of self-control in most people is also interfering with our exposure of the lies of 9/11, the Holocaust, and other crimes. When we show people the evidence that we have been lied to about these events, many of them become frightened at the thought that our "authorities" – who they trusted and assumed would protect them – are involved with such gigantic crimes. Their reaction is to run away and hide from the information.

If you can accept the fact that humans are a species of monkey, then you should be able to see that humans misbehave for the same reason that animals misbehave. Although we don't understand animal behavior very well, I would say that five reasons that animals and humans commit crimes are:

In a free enterprise system, people have to compete for food, a home, and other basic necessities. The people who are failures in this competitive system are going to become hungry, and possibly homeless, also.

Some of these people have enough self-control to find a way to survive without committing crimes. For example, some of them become parasitic, such as by living with their parents, applying for government welfare programs, getting married to somebody who can support them, or by finding food in the trash cans and sleeping in the city parks. However, some of these people choose to behave like animals and grab at what they want.

Some authors have written fiction books in which they give pity to these types of criminals. For example, Oliver Twist, by Charles Dickens, and Les Miserables, by Victor Hugo.

We have a tendency to feel sorry for these types of criminals, but there are not many of these criminals today because modern technology has made it so easy for us to produce excessive amounts of food and material items that lots of governments, churches, and other organizations are providing plenty of welfare programs.

The people who are too mentally disturbed to benefit from the welfare programs, and who become homeless as a result, are rarely hungry, either, because there are so many markets and citizens discarding enormous amounts of edible food that most homeless people can find plenty of food in the trash cans. It is very unusual to find a person who has starved to death in a modern nation.

Incidentally, it is important to note that we are producing so much food trash today that we have inadvertently increased the population of rats, mice, birds, raccoons, and certain other animals. We should be doing something to reduce the population of the animals in our cities, such as disposing food trash in a manner that prevents seagulls from getting at it, and developing robots to kill pigeons, rats, and other creatures. Unfortunately, there are so many mentally disturbed liberals who regard the concept of "population control" as cruel that they interfere with attempts to control animal populations.

Getting back to the issue of the people who commit crimes to provide themselves with food, this type of crime is unusual today in Europe, Japan, and the USA, but not because people have been purchasing guns, or because some nations have been prohibiting guns. Guns have no effect on whether a hungry person is going to steal some food.

This type of crime has been dramatically reduced by providing welfare programs for the unemployable people. However, the welfare programs don't stop the unemployable people from committing crimes for other purposes, and it doesn't reduce the number of unemployable people. Actually, the number of unemployable people is increasing every year. In order to reduce crime and the number of unemployable people, we need to understand:

a) Why do some of the unemployable people continue to commit crimes even though welfare programs are providing them with their basic necessities?

   The sections below this will discuss four more reasons that we commit crimes.

b) Why are some people unable to make a living?

   Two reasons that some people are having trouble making a living are:

1) Some people do not want a job.
These people do not have the mental characteristics necessary to enjoy modern jobs. These people complain that they don't want to be members of a rat race, or they don't want to be corporate slaves, or they don't like following work schedules, or they don't like being told what to do.

2) Some people cannot do their job properly.
Two reasons that some people have trouble doing their jobs properly are:
- Some people have certain mental or physical disorders that interferes with their jobs, such as low energy levels, below-average coordination, alcohol problems, or a personality that annoys other people to such an extent that nobody wants to work with them.
- Some people do not have enough skills to do a modern job, such as orphans who never had a proper education, or people who didn't learn much of anything due to their substandard mental characteristics.

Many of the unemployable people would have been able to take care of themselves if they had been born 10,000 years ago because in that era all they had to do was chase after pigs with sharp sticks. Modern society requires people who can work in teams, follow orders and time schedules, and learn some useful skills, but some people don't have the necessary mental characteristics to do that.

How do we reduce the number of unemployable people? And how do we reduce the crimes that they commit? It should be obvious that we cannot reduce this type of problem by purchasing guns, or by prohibiting guns.

The only way to reduce the number of unemployable people and their crimes is to restrict them to their own neighborhoods, or evict them from the city, so that they don't annoy us; provide them food and other basic necessities so that they are not committing crimes simply to survive; and restrict reproduction so that there are fewer misfits in the next generation.

Most of us have the ability to earn our basic necessities in a legal manner, but all of us want more material items than we can afford. There are different reasons as to why we want more items:

• Sometimes we want more material items because we actually want to use the items.
• Sometimes we want more items, or more expensive versions of the items, simply so that we can make ourselves appear higher in the social hierarchy, which in turn allows us to feel more important.
• In a free enterprise system, the single men who can gather more material wealth have a better chance of attracting a desirable wife.
• Most wealthy people have more items than they use, and a house that is larger than they use, but they continue to gather items due to some type of serious emotional disorder, such as absurdly intense craving for wealth or status, or an incredible lack of self-control.

Some people react to the dilemma of wanting more than they can afford by titillating themselves with fantasies of becoming wealthy, such as winning a lottery, becoming wealthy from investments, or marrying somebody wealthy. Other people react by convincing themselves that they don't need the item that they cannot afford, and by forcing themselves to ignore the issue by thinking of something else. However, there are some people who react by committing crimes in order to get the items they crave.

The people who commit crimes simply because they want more than they can afford, are behaving in a manner similar to an animal that has enough food to eat, but cannot resist the urge to grab at more food.

Why do some animals and people eat so much food that they become obese? Some of them seem to have low levels of self-control, and some seem to have absurdly intense cravings for food, and others have some other mental or physical problem.

We do not yet know enough about DNA to determine exactly why some people become obese, but it is safe to say that the obese people have lower quality genetics than the people who can control their weight.

Keep in mind that I am not implying that everybody who maintains a proper weight has better quality genetics. There are certainly some people who have a proper weight only because their digestive system is so defective that they can eat excessive amounts of food without becoming obese, and there are likely to be some people who have a defective ability to produce fat, so they never become obese, either.

There are also some people who maintain a proper weight only because they torment themselves by vomiting after some meals, or with horrible fantasies of becoming obese.

The same concepts apply to the people who commit crimes to get more material wealth than they can earn legally. Specifically, some of them may have low levels of self-control, and some may have absurdly intense cravings for material items. Some people who suffer from low self-esteem may be committing crimes simply because they want some expensive status symbols so that they can appear successful and important.

Regardless of what their problem is, the people who commit crimes because they want more than they can afford should be classified as having lower quality genetics than the people who can accept whatever level of wealth that they can earn. This is especially true of the wealthy people who are committing crimes to become even wealthier. We should regard them as having some very serious mental disorders. They should not be admired.

As with obesity, I am not implying that everybody who avoids criminal activities has good quality genetics. Some of the people who have never committed a crime are not truly interested in being honest. Rather, they are simply holding back their craving to commit crimes, perhaps because they are afraid of jail, or perhaps because they are waiting for a better opportunity. In a different environment, they may become criminals.

We cannot stop a person from becoming obese simply by purchasing guns, or by restricting guns. Likewise, guns have no effect on the people who are committing crimes to get more material items.

The only way to reduce obesity is to restrict reproduction to the people who can control their weight, and the only way to stop people from committing crimes to get more items than they can afford is to remove them from society so that we don't become their victims, and to restrict reproduction so that each generation has less of a craving for material wealth, and less of an interest in committing crimes, and more of an interest in becoming a productive member of society.

The people who rape, vandalize, torture animals or people, or commit certain other types of violent crimes that do not provide them with material wealth are obviously not committing those type of crimes to acquire more material wealth. They are committing violent crimes because they are angry. Why are they so angry? And why do they choose to commit violent crimes rather than deal with their anger in a more sensible manner?

We can see this behavior with animals, also. For example, dogs are sociable creatures, and when a pet dog is left alone, some of them become angry and vandalize items in the house (Perhaps that is why the dog in the photo tore the pillow apart.)

Animals have only two reactions to problems; they either become angry, or they run away. Likewise, when humans are upset, our emotions also want us to either become angry, or run away from the problem. We do not have any emotional craving to research the problem, discuss it, and experiment with solutions.

Ideally, when we experience a problem in life, we would exert enough self-control to refrain from becoming angry, and to refrain from running away and hiding. We should have enough self-control to face the problem and deal with it in an intelligent manner. Unfortunately, most people don't have much self-control, and some people have abnormally high levels of anger, so it is difficult for those people to avoid a tantrum.

We don't know enough about the animal or human mind to explain why some animals and people are more likely to have a violent temper tantrum, but we don't need to know the exact reasons in order to reduce violent crimes. The solution to this type of crime is to remove the people who are violent so that they don't bother us, and to restrict reproduction to the people who react to problems in a more peaceful, sensible manner.

Donald Trump understands Aesop's fable of the snake; can you?

Donald Trump has occasionally read the lyrics of the song The Snake to a crowd of people, which is a variation of one of Aesop's Fables. The fable shows that it is foolish to bring somebody into your life, or your organization, if he is not compatible with you. Businesses, militaries, and most other organizations follow this philosophy, but no society is doing so.

The USA boasts about accepting snakes, wretched refuse, and huddled masses, but we don't have to continue on this path. We could stop being the world's human garbage dump, raise our standards of behavior, and become a nation where everybody is well behaved.

The USA is especially resistant to this philosophy because the American people like to imagine that they are "Underdogs", who have been bullied and abused by wealthy people and aristocrats. Americans like to believe that they are heroes for providing a home for the "wretched refuse" and "huddled masses".

When a business hires a person, they don't merely give him a job and then ignore him. Rather, they regularly give him a job performance review to ensure that he is a productive member of their team. If he doesn't fit in, they evict him.

Our nations, by comparison, are accepting immigrants and refugees with no concern for whether they will fit in with us, find friends, find a job, adapt to our culture, or learn our language. We don't even check to ensure that they have found a home to live in, and enough food.

If an immigrant or refugee becomes unemployed, lonely, and miserable, and if he reacts with anger or violence, whose fault is it? Blaming the immigrant will not solve the problem. It makes more sense to say that this particular problem is due to society's irresponsible treatment of immigrants. We should describe a nation as cruel for accepting immigrants who don't fit in, and doing nothing as the misfit immigrant is tormented by loneliness and unemployment.

If some of the misfit immigrants join crime networks to make a living, we could say it is our fault for letting them in and allowing them to become unemployed and angry. Or, if they get a job in our government, and if they promote policies that are detrimental to the nation, we could say that we are responsible for that problem, also.

When a misfit immigrant behaves in a detrimental manner, our natural tendency is to become angry at him because we don't like to look critically at ourselves. However, blaming the misfit, or punishing him, does nothing to reduce this problem. By comparison, if we blame our nation, then the solution to this problem becomes obvious. Specifically, our government should ensure that every immigrant is becoming a productive member of society, and if not, they must be evicted. This policy has proven to be successful for other organizations, and it will be just as successful for nations.

We should not bring people into our nation and then ignore them. As with businesses and other organizations, the government should occasionally review each immigrant's situation and ensure that each of them is fitting into society. If an immigrant is having trouble finding a job or friends, or adapting to our culture, and if the government cannot help him fix the problem, then he should be evicted.

Furthermore, this concept applies to our own children. There is no guarantee that a child is going to fit into the society of his parents. Some children are going to become adults who are unemployed, lonely, and/or miserable, and some of those misfits may react with anger and violence. Every nation is responding to those misfits by punishing them, but that doesn't cause them to fit in with the rest of us, and it does not reduce the number of misfits in the next generation.

We should regard a society as irresponsible when it gives life to children with no regard for the quality of their life, and no concern for whether they will become productive members of society. And a society is cruel when it allows some of its children to grow up to be lonely, unemployed, tormented misfits.

This concept is similar to what I mentioned about abortions. The conservatives boast that they are wonderful people for opposing abortion and euthanasia, but they are actually tormenting children – and tormenting society – by giving life to unwanted and defective children because most of those children end up having lonely, miserable lives. People who show no concern for the quality of a person's life are cruel, crude animals.

A more responsible society would ensure that every baby they give life to, and every immigrant that they accept, is going to become a productive member of society and enjoy his life. It is the selfish, stupid, ignorant, and irresponsible people who want to accept immigrants and give life to babies without any concern for what happens to them, or how miserable their lives become.

We cannot stop angry misfits from committing violent crimes simply by purchasing guns, or by restricting guns. The only sensible way to reduce these violent crimes is to reduce the number of people who are having a miserable life. This requires that a nation follow the same philosophy as a business. Specifically, we must be concerned about who we bring into our nation, and we must ensure that all of the children and immigrants fit into our nation.

The children and immigrants that turn out to be misfits need to be restricted to certain neighborhoods, or evicted. We should also restrict reproduction to the people who react to problems in a more peaceful, sensible manner so that each generation has fewer people who react to problems with anger and violence.

I mentioned in another document that Benjamin Sifrit and his girlfriend got involved with burglary, and eventually murder, because they came to the conclusion that risky crimes would provide them with excitement. They were not committing crimes because they wanted more material items, or because they were angry. Rather, they were committing crimes simply because they were suffering from mental disorders, and were experimenting with various crimes to see if any of them would end their misery and provide them with happiness.

Some people have mental or physical disorders that cause them a lot of misery, but people react to their misery in different ways. Some people react by taking drugs to mask the pain, and others titillate themselves with food, pornography, religious fantasies, or video games.

Some of the miserable people have noticed that they feel better when they do something risky or dangerous, such as a crime, or a triple flip on a motorcycle. Doing a risky or dangerous activity can make a miserable person feel better because:

• We receive some momentary titillation when we achieve one of our goals, even if it is something destructive, such as committing a crime, or something idiotic, such as successfully riding a skateboard down a staircase. Achieving a goal also makes us feel clever, talented, and important. If a person's life is dominated by failures, disappointments, and internal pains, then successfully committing a crime will provide him with some momentary pleasure.

• When a person is doing a risky or dangerous activity, he is likely to be concentrating on the activity to such an extent that he is distracted from his internal pains. This can create the illusion that the risky activity is exciting and fun.

In a free enterprise system, the people who get involved with dangerous stunts can make a living by entertaining people, but this is not a sensible way of helping the emotionally disturbed people. Only a small number of them are capable of being successful entertainers. Most of them end up injuring themselves on a routine basis, adding a burden to our healthcare system, and some become paralyzed or brain damaged, which makes them even more of a burden. They also waste resources because they are frequently breaking items.

We cannot stop the miserable people from committing crimes or doing risky athletic stunts simply by purchasing some guns, or by restricting guns. The miserable people are going to spend their life searching for relief, regardless of our policy towards guns.

The most sensible way of dealing with miserable people who commit crimes to titillate themselves is to remove them from society and restrict reproduction to reduce the number of miserable people.

Earlier I mentioned that we should have a Quality Control Department that watches over people, including children. When we discover a child who regards an "ordinary" life as "boring", and who wants "more excitement", we should investigate to determine whether something is wrong with his brain and/or body. People who are searching for happiness are showing signs that there is something seriously wrong with them. People should not search for happiness. They should enjoy life as soon as they wake up in the morning. However, only people whose brain is functioning correctly will believe that. The mentally defective people will not understand it.

The same is true with our body. A person who is in good physical health will not complain that life is physically difficult or painful. He will wake up in the morning and immediately be able to function without complaining about aching muscles, or the difficulty of bending over to tie his shoes, or the pain of having to sit upright in a chair.

When we discover that a child is complaining about ordinary physical activities, or if he complains that he is cold or hot when nobody else is complaining about the temperature, we should investigate to see if something is wrong with him, and we should experiment to find out if his problem can be fixed with hormones, medications, or diet. We should not ignore children who behave differently, or have trouble doing what everybody else can do.

Farmers do not dismiss the abnormal behavior of animals as meaningless. Rather, they regard strange behavior as a sign that the animal is defective or sick. We should apply the same concepts to people. Children who display abnormal behavior should be observed more closely because it is likely that their strange behavior is due to some type of mental or physical disorder.

In this previous document, I pointed out that my abilities to run decreased during my early teenage years, which should have been a sign that something was going wrong with my body. Eventually my body deteriorated so much that I was wearing long underwear while other people were wearing short sleeve shirts and short pants.

If we would start maintaining a database of our lives, and do quality control checks on everybody, we would eventually notice that everybody has mental and physical limitations and problems, and that some of our problems can be reduced through diet, hormones, and medical drugs, and that in turn would allow more people to enjoy life and be more productive. That information would also help us make better decisions about who should be reproducing.

Children who want to engage in risky stunts, for example, should be regarded as having something seriously wrong with them. Likewise, we should regard a child as having a problem if he wants to listen to music at extremely loud volumes, or if he puts enormous amounts of salt or sugar on his food, or if he cannot sit quietly at a dinner table or school, or if he drinks abnormal amounts of water. We should stop dismissing bizarre behavior in children as, "Oh, he is just a child."

Likewise, people who spend abnormal amounts of time titillating themselves with food, pornography, material items, trophies, pets, music, or video games should be closely observed to see if there is something wrong with them.

Some of the farmers that raise cows for milk are maintaining a database of their cows. They keep track of the age of each cow, how much food each cow is eating, and how much milk each cow is producing. One company has gone so far as to produce a motion sensing device that farmers attach to each cow to transmit its movements to a computer.

We should treat people in a similar manner. We should maintain an extensive database of the human population. Information about animals, plants, and humans is valuable. There is no reason to be paranoid of databases.

The government, schools, businesses, hospitals, and other organizations should add information about us to the database. We should be trying to understand our characteristics, not keep secrets or deceive one another about ourselves.

If we were collecting information about ourselves, each of us would benefit because it would help us make better decisions about what to do with our life.

For example, imagine if everybody was put through a variety of tests to determine which foods we are allergic to, how well our digestive system works, and how much of a particular food we can eat before it overwhelms our digestive system. That type of information would allow us to avoid the foods that cause us trouble, and to set the quantities of food to avoid problems.

For example, you might discover that if you eat more than 12 grams of oil or fat in a meal, the excess will not be digested because you do not produce enough bile, or whatever, and that excess oil will provide food for bacteria, thereby creating gas, and making your poop oily and messy. Another person might be able to handle three times as much oil.

We expect airline mechanics to regularly analyze the engines of airplanes and maintain a database of their performance and repairs, but we don't apply this same philosophy to ourselves. We don't have any interest in understanding our own bodies, and how each of us is unique.

If we would accept the fact that we are monkeys with imperfect bodies and limitations, and if our government would fund more scientific research into human health, then we could put everybody through a variety of tests to determine our particular characteristics and limitations. We could create a database that helps everybody to avoid digestive disorders, improve their sleeping, reduce allergies, avoid injuries from physical activities, and reduce the chances that we get diabetes.

The more we understand about our bodies and mind, the better job we will do at designing a life for ourselves that is free of stress, sickness, injuries, and pain. The people who are paranoid of databases are interfering with progress. We need to study humans, not be secretive.

The final reason that I want to mention as to why some people commit crimes is that humans are a species of monkey, but genetic variations between us cause some people to be more similar to monkeys. The people who have a mind that is more similar to a monkey's mind are more likely to commit crimes than those of us who have more of the advanced, human qualities.

Animals are incredibly arrogant and selfish. Furthermore, they don't understand the concept of personal property, so they have no guilt about grabbing at whatever attracts their attention. Likewise, they do not understand the concept of vandalism, or protecting the environment, so when they destroy objects in their area, they do not regard themselves as "vandals".

Young children are so similar to monkeys that they also grab at whatever attracts their attention, and without any guilt. Children will also vandalize and destroy items as they try to entertain themselves, such as the child in the photo who used a blue pen to draw on the walls, the dog, and himself.

As a child grows up, he should behave less like an animal and more like a human, but because of genetic diversity, we do not mature equally. Some adults retain more of certain childish characteristics, giving them a behavior that we refer to as obnoxious, childish, infantile, or crude.

In 2015, a group of college students caused tremendous damage to a hotel during one of their parties. Some of those students may have been destructive because they were angry with life (reason #4) or because they are mentally ill and were hoping the vandalism would bring some excitement to their miserable life (reason #3), but some of them may have not matured properly, resulting in their tendency to behave like children, such as being entertained by vandalism.

If we were maintaining a database of everybody's life, we would eventually have a better understanding of how children mature into adults, and who is not maturing properly.

Perhaps the reason some adult men will fondle women on crowded trains is because they did not completely lose their childish craving to grab at whatever attracts their attention. Perhaps the adults who giggle when they see a naked body are those who didn't completely lose their childish inhibitions about sex and bodies.

We don't understand the human mind very well, or what changes a child's mind goes through as we become an adult, so we cannot be certain as to why some adults show childish characteristics, but we can say that those adults have lower quality genetics compared to the children who develop into more responsible adults.

An adult who retains excessive childish characteristics is likely to commit crimes because he will be less interested in what other people think; have less of an understanding and concern for private property; and more likely to laugh at vandalism and pranks.

We cannot stop adults from comitting these type of crimes simply by purchasing guns, or by prohibiting guns, for the same reason that guns cannot stop a child or a monkey from grabbing at what it wants, or from drawing on a dog with a blue pen. The only way to reduce this type of crime is to evict the low-quality adults from society, or restrict them to certain neighborhoods, so that we don't become a victim of their crude behavior. We should also restrict reproduction to the adults who have better behavior so that each generation has fewer of these obnoxious adults.

When an animal is frightened by another animal, it reacts by either:

1) Trying to appear dangerous in an attempt to intimidate the other animal into leaving it alone, which may result in a fight.

2) Running away.

As animals developed into humans, those two reactions became the foundations for the two most popular policies for crime:

1) The people who tend to react to criminals by wanting to intimidate or fight with the criminals are attracted to the theory that if everybody purchased guns, most criminals would become too frightened to commit crimes, and when the few courageous criminals decide to commit a crime, our guns will allow us to protect ourselves.

2) The people who have a tendency to run away from frightening situations are attracted to the theory that by eliminating guns, criminals will not be as dangerous.

Both the conservatives and the liberals are offering us crime policies that are emotionally satisfying, but they are worthless. We need to restrict leadership positions to the people who have an excellent level of self-control so that they can design laws, economic systems, work environments, school systems, social activities, recreational events, and other social technology according to what will make our lives better, not according to what makes us feel good. We should not do what we want to do; rather, we should exert self-control and do what provides us with the most pleasant life.

Every nation has a legal system, lots of police departments, and thousands of laws, but crime and corruption is rampant all around the world. All of our legal systems, police departments, and laws have been failures at reducing crime.

The only way to develop a successful legal system is to suppress our emotional feelings, stop looking for a policy that we "like", and push ourselves into experimenting with crime policies that are based on scientific evidence.

Neither the liberals nor the conservatives have a sensible policy for reducing crime or corruption. However, if we regard humans as a species of monkey, then it becomes obvious as to how to reduce bad behavior. Specifically, follow the same policy that zoos follow when they create exhibits of animals.

As I described here, zoos watch the behavior of the animals. If all or most of the animals of an exhibit are behaving in a strange manner, the zoo management assumes that the exhibit is providing an inappropriate environment for that particular species of animal, and they experiment with changes to the environment.

If, instead, they discover that only one animal is behaving in a strange manner, they then investigate that particular animal and pass judgment on whether it is sick or genetically defective. If they come to the conclusion that it is sick, they try to cure it with medical technology, and if they come to the conclusion that it is genetically defective, they are likely to separate it from the other animals or euthanize it.

If you can regard humans as a species of monkey, then you should realize that crime, corruption, littering, divorce, obesity, bribery, and other behavioral problems are due to both our social environment and our genetic characteristics. Therefore, we can reduce behavioral problems by improving our social environment and by improving our genetic characteristics.

The people with bad behavior like to blame their problems entirely on their environment, but if only a small number of people in the environment are showing that same bad behavior, then it is not due to the environment. Rather, it is due to the genetic characteristics of those particular people.

The people committing crimes are a small minority of the population, and they are scattered among people who are not committing crimes. We can even find criminals within families of honest people. Therefore, it is senseless for those criminals to claim that their behavior is due to the environment.

There are significant differences between behavior that is the result of our genetic characteristics, and behavior that is due to the environment, so there are ways for us to determine whether a person's bad behavior is primarily due to the environment, or primarily due to his genetic characteristics. For example, behavior that is genetic will remain with a person forever, but environmental influences can result in behavior that changes instantaneously.

For example, if a person who frequently loses his temper at his coworkers gets another job and suddenly becomes well behaved and sociable, then we could conclude that there was something about that other job environment that was causing him to lose his temper.

Furthermore, if the person who replaced him in that job also frequently loses his temper but was not losing his temper in his previous job, and if the person who replaced him did, also, and so on, then we could conclude that that particular job is inappropriate for humans.

If our leaders understood this concept, then they could design better job environments. For example, there have been employees at Telsa who complained that they are suffering physical ailments from doing their job, and some of the Amazon employees complained that they have to pee in a bottle because they don't have time to use a bathroom.

When we find an employee complaining about a job environment, and if we find that his replacement complains also, and so on, then we could conclude that the job is inappropriate for humans and needs to be redesigned. However, if only 1 out of 100 people complain about a particular job, then we would have to conclude that the people who cannot handle the job either need more training, or are genetically inferior to the majority of people. If we determine that a particular employee is genetically inferior, then he needs to be analyzed to determine his characteristics, and given a job that fits his particular limitations.

Unfortunately, analyzing the employees in this manner requires managers who realize that humans are monkeys, and that we are genetically unique, and that we have lots of limitations and defects. It also requires a social environment that allows managers to tell an employee that he is genetically unfit for a particular job.

In the world today, however, a manager would get in trouble if he were to tell an employee that he is genetically inferior to the other employees. Therefore, we are currently ignoring the issue of our genetic differences. Therefore, instead of helping everybody to understand their particular characteristics and find a job that fits them, we are denying that we have differences.

The same concept applies to our other social problems. For example, if only a small number of people were having trouble forming stable friendships and marriages, then we could say that those people are genetically defective, but during the past few decades, it seems that the people having trouble forming relationships has been increasing faster than can be explained through genetics. This is evidence that our environment is deteriorating, and that it is having a bad effect on human relationships. Therefore, if we could figure out what would be a more appropriate environment, we would be able to make rapid improvements in our friendships and marriages.

If we had leaders who could understand these concepts, and who had the courage to experiment with society, then they would experiment with our job environments, recreational activities, courtship procedures, holiday celebrations, and other aspects of our culture, in order to figure out how to reduce stress, arguments, divorce, and other problems. They would also encourage people to experiment with different activities and jobs in order to figure out what their particular characteristics and limitations are, and to find a job that they are productive at.

Unfortunately, the only way to get leaders who will experiment with our culture is to replace all of our government officials, and change the method we use to elect leaders. That requires finding a lot of people with the attitude of a pioneer or explorer.

The liberals and conservatives are frequently accusing one another of electing incompetent and dishonest candidates, but in reality, both groups are doing it. The reason is because the majority of people make decisions primarily according to their emotional feelings rather than their intelligence. Both groups behave like children who follow anybody who titillates them. The end result is that both groups frequently follow incompetent or selfish people, or people who are members of a crime network. This in turn allows crime networks to have a significant influence over the nation.

The Tea Party is an example of how conservatives can be tricked into following selfish and dishonest people. The Tea Party was created by the billionaire Koch brothers, and they claimed that it was to help the American people by demanding a reduction in taxes, but what are the chances that a couple of billionaires are interested in helping the American people?

Most people should have had the sense to assume that the Tea Party was going to be a fraudulent organization to help billionaires, but I suspect that a lot of conservatives were attracted to the idea of joining the Tea Party because:

1) They liked the concept of having their taxes reduced.

2) They were attracted to the concept that they were going to behave like their ancestors. Joining The Tea Party made them feel as if they were joining Boston Tea Party of 1773.

However, take a look at the "About" page of the teaparty.org site and notice this remark:

"The Tea Party includes those who possess a strong belief in the Judeo-Christian values embedded in our great founding documents."

What are "Judeo-Christian values"? That is propaganda from Jews who are trying to fool the Christians into believing that Christians should have a close friendship with Jews.

Imagine a couple of billionaire Muslim brothers creating an organization that had this statement on their Internet site:

"We possess a strong belief in the Islamo-Christian values embedded in our great founding documents."

Although Jews might respond that Christianity developed from Jews, thereby making "Judeo-Christian" a valid adjective, Islam seems to have developed from Judaism also, but we don't find Jews talking about "Judeo-Islam values", or "Judeo-Muslim values".

Historians describe Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as "Abrahamic" religions since they appear to have developed from the same religion. However, the Jews try to create the impression that the Islam religion is something evil, rather than a religion that is similar to Judaism.

I don't care for religions, so I don't know much about these three religions, but I have the feeling that Judaism has more in common with Islam than it does with Christianity. In such a case, it would make more sense to talk about "Judeo-Islamic" values.

The conservatives are not learning anything about religion from their leaders, or anything about the Second Amendment, or any other issue. Rather, they are following leaders who tell them what they want to hear, and who occasionally give them propaganda. They are remaining ignorant and misguided.

They are behaving like animals who want to follow the same path over and over rather than think for themselves, learn about life, and experiment with their options. This is why the conservatives in Europe, Japan, and other nations are still supporting monarchies, and with unbelievable levels of wealth and pampering. For example, the English people are providing their Royal Family with Windsor Castle (photo below), Buckingham Palace, and other absurdly expensive and large homes and offices.

Incidentally, there is a lot of evidence that the Jews from Russia were responsible for Marxism and Nazism, so the following phrases would make more sense than "Judeo-Christian": Judeo-Fascist, Judeo-Nazi, Judeo-Marxist, and Judeo-Communist.

As I have mentioned, I think the mentally ill people are more attracted to the liberal organizations. Since an organization is a reflection of its members, as the number of mentally ill people increases in an organization, the behavior, leadership, and policies of the organization becomes increasingly bizarre.

Therefore, I am not surprised that most of the government officials who are being accused of being involved with "Pizzagate" and pedophilia, and most of the people in Hollywood who are being accused of sexual abuse, and most of the people who are being accused of drinking the blood of children that they kidnapped, tortured, and murdered, are liberals.

Many businesses and sports organizations require their employees to submit to drug tests, and some businesses are required by the military to go even further and require prospective employees to get a background check for a security clearance.

However, the voters don't expect our leaders to provide us with information about their mental or physical health, or submit to a background check. We allow our leaders to be extremely secretive and deceptive. This is especially significant with the leaders of the USA because our nation is frequently bombing other nations and imposing economic sanctions. We could say that the entire world has a right to know if the leaders of the USA have properly functioning brains.

In 2016, Donald Trump's doctor wrote a brief note that claimed Trump was in excellent mental and physical health, and in 2018 that doctor claimed that some of Trump's employees went to his office in 2017 and took all of Trump's medical records.

If Trump is in excellent health, why would he take his medical records away from his doctor? And what did Trump do with those documents? Did he incinerate them? Or has he been paying somebody to edit the documents?

One of the concepts I promote is that we should stop pandering to people and start doing what is best for the team. We are under no obligation to please any individual citizen's emotional cravings, even if he is in a leadership position. We should make decisions according to what is best for society, or the human race, or the future generations. Which do you think is best for the nation, the world, and the human race:

A) To know all of the mental and physical characteristics of our leaders, and to know who they associate with.
B) To allow our leaders to be secretive about their mental and physical characteristics, and to be secretive about the people they associate with.

We should not care what our leaders want. We should do what is best for the human race, and I say what is best is to give all people the right to know the mental and physical characteristics of all leaders, and the right to know who our leaders are associating with.

None of us benefit by allowing our leaders to be secretive. My recommendation is that no society should allow their leaders to be secretive about themselves, especially not the nations that are building and maintaining weapons. The only leaders who benefit from secrecy are those who are trying to hide mental disorders, and the leaders who associate with criminals.

Some people might respond that the friends of Trump, Putin, Merkel, and other leaders want to remain secretive, but why would they? Why are they not proud of their friendship?

Many businesses and sports organizations require their members to be tested for drugs, but it is more important for us to be concerned about the mental and physical health of our leaders than to worry that an athlete might be taking steroids, or that a factory worker might be smoking marijuana.

If a government official is mentally disturbed, he can cause tremendous suffering for people around the world. By comparison, a crazy athlete is most likely to hurt only himself.

We need to change our priorities. We should be more concerned about our leaders than our athletes. The people in leadership positions have a much more significant effect over our lives and the future generations than athletes and factory workers. Therefore, we should put much more effort into analyzing people in leadership positions than we put into analyzing athletes and factory workers.

I suppose the five main reasons that people want guns are:
1) Protection against criminals.
2) Entertainment, such as shooting at television sets.
3) Sports, in which people are shooting in competitions.
4) Hunting animals.
5) Protection against animals, or to protect a farm or ranch from animals.

In the USA, there is so much crime, and our government, police departments, and courts are so full of criminal Jews, that I can understand why citizens want guns for protection. I have no objection to American citizens having guns for protection. However, my suggestion is for us to create some completely new cities, and in those cities, I would not allow the citizens to have guns for protection against criminals.

As I mentioned many times, my recommendation is for the new cities to follow the principles that have worked successfully for businesses, militaries, and other organizations. The employees of a business do not have the right to carry guns for protection against other employees. Rather, the management of the business is responsible for setting up a social environment that reduces crime, fights, sexual harassment, and other problems, and they supervise a security department to deal with troublesome people. The managers and security personnel who do a bad job are fired.

My recommendation is that the city follow the same philosophy. Specifically, a government agency should be responsible for the social environment of the city, and they would be analogous to the people who work at a zoo who are responsible for the environment of the animals. As with those zoo officials, they would try to ensure the city is providing the people with an environment that makes our lives pleasant, and which reduces crime, fights, sexual harassment, and other behavioral problems. They would also supervise a security department; ie, the police and courts.

We would not have lawyers as we do today who are independent businesses that can make enormous amounts of money, and who are not held accountable for what they do. Instead, the government officials, and the people in the police departments and courts, would be regarded as employees of society, and they would be given job performance reviews on a regular basis, just like everybody else. Furthermore, the worst performing people would be replaced so that somebody else could try.

I have suggested dividing a city into three equal sections. This will make it easier for us to compare the performance of the people involved with security. We will be able to easily observe which of the three sections of the city has the least and worst problems with fighting, sexual harassment, obnoxious pranks, vandalism, graffiti, litter, and other behavioral problems. This will show us which of the government officials, policemen, lawyers, and judges need to be replaced.

This policy will allow us to slowly learn about human behavior. We will do an increasingly better job of designing a social environment that reduces behavioral problems, and we will learn how to more effectively reduce and resolve fights and crimes.

By comparison, when we let the citizens deal with crime by purchasing and carrying guns, nothing ever improves because the citizens never learn anything about improving the social environment of the city, or how to reduce crime. Letting the citizens deal with crime is essentially going back in time to a prehistoric era when everybody carried spears for protection.

Should citizens be allowed to use guns for entertainment, such as shooting at targets, televisions, and trees?

Business executives resolve this issue by considering what is best for the organization, not according to what some individual employees want, or according to what the NRA wants. My recommendation is for a city to do the same as businesses; specifically, a city should design a policy according to what is best for society, not according to what some individual citizens want, or what the NRA wants.

As far as I know, there is no business that gives their employees the right to shoot guns for entertainment during their lunch hour, or at Christmas parties. It is possible that some small businesses that produce guns will let their employees play with the guns, but most businesses don't consider guns to be a sensible form of entertainment for their employees. The military provides people with guns, but does any military permit the people to use the guns for entertainment, such as shooting at television sets, old automobiles, or trees?

How does society benefit by letting citizens have access to dangerous guns for entertainment purposes? I cannot see any benefit to society. Therefore, I would prohibit the use of dangerous guns as entertainment devices. My recommendation is that products that are designed for entertainment should be safe for both people and the environment. Therefore, the citizens who want to use guns for entertainment would be restricted to paintball guns, water pistols, and similar types of guns.

“Let them use paintball guns!”

The guns that use explosives to shoot metal bullets should not be regarded as "entertainment" devices. They should be classified as "dangerous tools", and they should be restricted to people who are willing to go through training programs, and who will use the guns properly, such as forest rangers, hunters, the police, and the military. Allowing citizens to play with such guns is as senseless as allowing them to play with napalm, grenades, dynamite, and sulfuric acid.

Some people may claim that dangerous guns make a shooting competition more exciting, but I suspect that the people who need a competition to be dangerous are suffering from some type of emotional disorder. They may be similar to the type of people who want to do dangerous stunts with bicycles and skateboards. Specifically, they may regard the dangerous activities as exciting because it helps them become distracted from their internal misery.

What is exciting about firing a powerful gun? The kickback is so strong that it will hurt your shoulder after a few shots, and the noise is so extreme that you have to wear earplugs. The bullets are also very expensive. What is the benefit to such a gun compared to a paintball gun?

The people who use dangerous guns in shooting competitions do not receive any additional pleasure compared to people who use paintball guns or other, less dangerous guns. The device that we use in a shooting competition is irrelevant. It is the competition and the people that we enjoy, not the items that we use in the competition.

Some target shooting competitions use dangerous guns, but others use bows and arrows, darts, baseballs, water balloons, or paintballs. There are arcade and video games that use guns that don't shoot anything; rather, they sense light from computer monitors. The Army has an adapter for a rifle for training purposes that fires a harmless laser (MILES).

The pleasure we receive from a competition is due to the competition and the people, not from the devices that we use in the competition. It makes no difference to human happiness whether we are shooting at a target with a paintball gun, or with a 50 caliber machine gun that shoots explosive bullets.

In my document about sports I pointed out that men are getting carried away with the equipment they use in sports and recreational events, such as when they replace their golf clubs in the hope that some new clubs will make them better at golf. It is not the equipment that makes golf fun. It is the socializing, the competition, and the opportunity to get out into the world and see the grass, trees, sky, flowers, birds, butterflies, and sunshine.

The people who believe that they need expensive or dangerous equipment to enjoy a sports or recreational event are ignorant or misguided fools who don't understand life or themselves. They are hurting their life by focusing on issues of no importance. They think they are making their life better by putting lots of money into expensive, and sometimes dangerous, equipment, but they are actually ruining their life by focusing on issues of no importance.

Furthermore, some people spend so much of their money on equipment that they cause financial problems for themselves or their family. Finally, some people with dangerous equipment accidentally hurt themselves, their family members, or their friends.

Some of the people who race automobiles have become so carried away with expensive equipment that this article claims that the people building race cars for NASCAR are spending more than $20 million a year to build the cars, and this article says the F1 race cars are even more expensive.

Citizens do not need expensive or dangerous equipment for their recreational activities. Furthermore, citizens should not be allowed to use equipment that will contaminate the environment with toxic or dangerous items. For example, the people who shoot lead bullets are contaminating the environment with lead, and those that shoot at television sets are also creating hundreds of sharp pieces of glass, metal, and plastic, which can tear into our skin. Some of the items that they shoot also release toxic chemicals.

Some gun owners may respond that they are shooting at televisions and clay pigeons on their own personal property, and that we should not tell them what they cannot do with their personal property, but as I explained here, nothing is isolated in this universe; everything interferes with the existence of other things.

There is no person whose property is so isolated from the rest of us that we are not affected by what he does on his property. For example, when a person fires lead pellets at clay pigeons, the pellets will scrape along the inside of the rifle, which will create some tiny bits of lead that float through the air. The much larger pellets will fall on his property, but some of those lead particles will wash into rivers or lakes, or contaminate underground water supplies, or be eaten by animals, which in turn can cause the lead pellets to be transported to somebody else's property.

Furthermore, everybody has a limited life, so when a person dies, somebody else will get his land, and that person will have to deal with all of the broken glass, sharp pieces of metal, toxic chemicals, and pieces of lead that he scattered around "his" property.

When trying to determine whether citizens should have a right to do something, we should not care what the citizens want. The government should not pander to individual citizens. We should instead ask: "How will this activity benefit society? And what will be the burden to society?"

We should not allow an activity simply because some citizens want to do it. We should design society according to what is best for the team; what is best for the planet earth and the human race. We should stop trying to satisfy the crude emotional desires of individual citizens and start focusing on what is best for all of us as a group.

As I've mentioned in previous documents, we are not "hurting" a person when we deny him what he wants. Our emotions are crude, and we have no responsibility to satisfy anybody's crude cravings. No woman, for example, is obligated to satisfy a man's craving for sex, and no society is obligated to satisfy a woman's craving for a baby.

In a democracy, the government officials pander to the citizens, which encourages us to make demands about what we want. A free enterprise system also encourages citizens to think about what they want and make demands to the businesses. We should replace our free enterprise system and our democracy with the type of leadership system that businesses and militaries use.

We should also restrict leadership to the men who are capable of providing the citizens with intelligent advice, and who have the emotional ability to stand up to citizens who demand that we give them what they want. We need leaders who can tell a person who demands the right to shoot dangerous guns:

"No! You do not have the right to use such weapons. You are restricted to paintball guns, water pistols, and other guns that we have deemed to be safe for entertainment. If you do not like this policy, you can provide some intelligent reasons for us to change it and hope that we are impressed with your arguments, or you can get out of our city."

The Constitution does not specify whether citizens can have guns for hunting, but our government has quietly resolved this issue. Our government has allowed citizens to use guns for hunting, as long as they follow a list of rules and regulations.

It is important to note that there are very few arguments over this issue. Why are people willing to accept the rules and regulations for hunting? Why aren't the liberals whining about hunters with guns? Why aren't the conservatives paranoid that the hunters are on a list of gun owners, or that the government is going to take away their guns?

From my own personal observations, there are very few people who want to use guns for hunting, and virtually all of them are willing to follow sensible rules, so there are only a few hunters who are whining about restrictions on hunting. Furthermore, those hunters are so well behaved that the liberals are not afraid of them, so they are not interested in whining about hunters.

By comparison, some of the people who have guns for personal protection and entertainment are irresponsible, mentally disturbed, and frightening. For example, some of us have encountered people shooting guns while they are drunk, and there was one time in the 1980's when I was riding my bicycle and somebody with a rifle shot a bullet towards me because he thought it would be funny.

Furthermore, some of the gun owners do not store their guns properly, thereby allowing children to get access to them, which in turn can result in children accidentally shooting themselves or their neighbors.

The people who are irresponsible with guns are usually not hunters; rather, they are people who want guns for entertainment or protection. Those irresponsible people are one of the reasons that a lot of us want to increase the restrictions on guns, such as requiring people to get training on the use of a gun, and to pass background checks so that we have some assurance that they are responsible people who are in good mental health.

If all gun owners were as responsible as the hunters, there would be fewer arguments over the issue of guns.

Although I would allow people to use guns for hunting, one rule I would change is to require all of the hunters to use non-toxic bullets. There is no reason for them to be scattering lead bullets throughout the world. The hunters that use buckshot to shoot at birds may be scattering millions of bits of lead throughout the planet every year.

Some hunters might complain that non-toxic bullets, other than those made of gold or platinum, are not as effective as lead bullets, but so what? Our ancestors a few centuries ago were hunting with muskets, or bows and arrows. If a hunter is too uncoordinated to be successful with iron or copper bullets, then he should be told to find some other hobby.

Bullets made with uranium or mercury would be more effective than bullets made from lead, but that does not justify allowing hunters to use such bullets. We should not care what the hunters want. We should ask ourselves what is the most sensible for society and the future generations.

There are a lot of guns that can be classified as "safe for entertainment", such as those that squirt water or shoot paintballs, but the guns that are capable of inflicting serious injuries should be treated in the same manner as we treat automobiles, airplanes, CAT scanners, sulfuric acid, and other dangerous items.

Anybody who wants to use dangerous items should have to first pass a training program on how to use it properly. That will give him a license to use the item, but it does not give him the freedom to use the item in any manner he pleases.

When a person receives a pilot's license, he is allowed to fly an airplane, but he is not given the right to use airplanes in any manner he pleases. For example, he cannot fly close to people's houses, public parks, or electric power lines. Furthermore, he cannot land and park his airplane wherever he pleases, such as on a school playground. Finally, he cannot sell his airplane secretly. Every society wants airplanes to be registered.

Likewise, the people who are allowed to use X-ray machines or CAT scanners are not provided with the freedom to use those machines in any location they please, or for any purpose they please. For example, they cannot take the machines to a public park and take X-rays or CAT scans of the birds and children in the park.

Why not treat dangerous guns in the same manner as other dangerous equipment? Why not require people who want such guns to first pass a training course on using them, and then require that they follow the rules on how to use them? Who is going to suffer if we treat guns the same as we treat airplanes and X-ray machines?

From the point of view of society, guns are dangerous, and the only people who should have access to them are people who are going to use them properly. They should not be regarded as toys for people to play with, or as security blankets for people who are frightened of crime.

I recommend classifying guns, bullets, gunpowder, and similar weapons and components as "tools for use in controlling animals and humans." They should be restricted to people who are involved with controlling human and animal populations, such as the police, military, and animal control agencies. Some farmers and other people who live or work around certain wild animals would also qualify for having access to rifles for protection and/or animal control.

Furthermore, as with automobiles, airplanes, and other dangerous items, people should have to get a license in order to use a gun. This would require that they pass a course to show that they know how to use, maintain, and store a gun and bullets properly.

Furthermore, people should not be allowed to use guns while intoxicated. A pilot gets in trouble for being drunk while flying, and so do automobile drivers, doctors, and dentists, so why should people with guns have special privileges with alcohol? Why should they be allowed to shoot guns while they are drunk?

If a person is caught using a gun while drunk, he should have his license taken away forever. A gun is not essential to human life, so we don't have any obligation to give him his license back after six months. We should stop feeling sorry for people who abuse their privileges.

Whenever somebody suggests increasing the restrictions on guns, the conservatives react by whining that the restrictions will prevent law-abiding citizens from having guns, but not the criminals who ignore the restrictions and purchase guns illegally, or who steal guns. A favorite whiny remark of conservatives is: "Only the criminals will have guns!"

I want to emphasize – again – that we must provide ourselves with leaders who are capable of standing up to the public rather than pander to them. The conservatives who whine about criminals with guns need to be told to shut up. The proper solution to criminals with guns is to remove the criminals from society, not remove the restrictions on guns and encourage everybody to purchase several guns.

If we would exile criminals to The City of Misfits, then we would not have to live in fear of criminals, and fewer people would have a desire to purchase guns for protection.

The conservatives are not solving any of our problems. They behave like frightened animals. They encourage fear, hysteria, and paranoia.

We need leaders who will experiment with a better legal system that is less tolerant of crime and corruption. We should change the purpose of the USA from being a refuge for underdogs, wretched refuse, and huddled masses, to becoming a nation of respectable people. We also need to cleanse our courts and police departments of crime gangs.

Exiling the criminals will not prevent crime, but it will reduce it to such a low level that we would not be in fear of crime, and our cities would not need so many security devices. Our cities today look like war zones because there are so many businesses that feel a need to have roll down security doors, high intensity security lights, security cameras, and steel gratings over windows.

Furthermore, an enormous amount of crime is the result of our policy that we can stop drug abuse by making drugs illegal. Our attempt to stop drug abuse is allowing crime networks to thrive. We could eliminate a lot of crime simply by making drugs legal in certain cities, or certain neighborhoods, so that people don't have to depend on crime networks for their drugs. The people who want drugs can move to those sections of the city, or to those cities.

As I have mentioned in other documents, democracies and free enterprise systems encourage us to be arrogant, spoiled brats who focus on our particular selfish emotional cravings rather than consider what is best for society.

A lot of Americans will respond that I am incorrect when I describe the USA as a "democracy" because it is actually a "republic". However, their arguments over whether America is a "republic" or a "democracy" are just as stupid and worthless as their arguments over the Second Amendment.

It doesn't matter which adjective we use to describe the USA. A significant aspect of this nation is that the businesses and government pander to the people, and that could be described as a "democracy" because it results in all aspects of the nation being dominated by the desires of the majority of people.

Many people will respond that the majority are not in control of the USA; rather, the majority is oppressed and abused by a minority of "special interests". However, the reason that a small group of criminals and wealthy people are dominating our nation is because:

1) The majority of people routinely elect incompetent and dishonest government officials. The majority of voters would never elect appropriate leaders because they want leaders who pander to them, not leaders who provide guidance. Have you noticed some of the candidates they have already elected, such as the entertainers, Al Franken and Jerry Springer? And they reelected Barney Frank even after there was evidence that he was flying orphans in from Nebraska to use as sex toys at parties in Washington DC.

2) The majority of people do nothing to stop crime networks and individual criminals from abusing us. An example is how the majority of people – after almost 18 years – are still refusing to spread information about how we were lied to about the 9/11 attack, and they still show no interest in arresting the criminals responsible for that crime. It is not a small group of "special interests" that are allowing the Jewish crime network to get away with the 9/11 attack. It is the majority of people, and the reason is because they behave like selfish, apathetic monkeys.

The majority of people are friendly and nice, but they cannot cope with the problems of a modern society. They are as helpless as children. They have nothing intelligent to say about any issue. They should keep their mouth shut and accept the fact that they need guidance.

Millions of people are regularly getting into arguments with one another about religion, politics, crime, and other issues, but none of them say anything intelligent.

They do not even listen to one another. Rather, each of them tries to convince the others of the "correct" beliefs.

There were so many people arguing about the presidential election of 2016 that some people posted articles, such as this, to help people cope with the arguments that were expected to occur over the Thanksgiving holiday.

The fighting was so intense with some families that they did not even get together for Thanksgiving. Apparently the Thanksgiving of 2016 was miserable for a lot of people because of all of the arguments, and other families enjoyed their Thanksgiving only because they struggled to avoid discussions about politics.

Most people do not "discuss" issues. Rather, they try to dominate, impress, and intimidate one another. They behave like monkeys that are fighting for dominance, except that instead of biting and scratching one another, they insult one another, yell at one another, and make sarcastic remarks and noises.

The majority of people are wasting their time by arguing over political and social issues, and they are causing themselves and other people a lot of frustration, anger, hatred, and sadness.

As for me, I have not been wasting my time visiting my family members for holidays during the past 6 years. I have been spending my holidays alone.

As our technology improves, the issues that a society must deal with become more technically complex, and that means there are fewer people who know enough about the issue to contribute to it. An example is the issue of GMO crops.

Millions of citizens are worried that GMO crops are dangerous, but instead of providing intelligent guidance, our business leaders are pandering to the ignorant and frightened people by boasting that they are producing food products that are "non-GMO". Unfortunately, most of the human population doesn't know what GMO is, so when businesses pander to those people, we end up with policies that appease ignorant, paranoid people rather than policies that make intellectual sense.

This article advises old people to avoid GMO crops, even though the author admits that we need more research to truly understand the GMO issue. Some other people are less honest and claim that GMO crops are definitely dangerous, and other people are claiming that they are definitely safe.

Most of us don't know much about GMO crops. Ideally, most of us would keep our mouth shut about the issue, and the scientists who have a greater understanding of the issue would create a policy for us. The scientists don't have all of the answers, of course, but they know more than the ordinary person.

Unfortunately, scientists have shown us many times that they cannot be trusted. The scientists who work for businesses, for example, are under pressure to sell products, and some scientists are under pressure by crime networks to promote certain concepts, such as global warming, carbon taxes, the Apollo moon landing, and the Holocaust.

In order for us to be able to trust scientists, we have to replace our economic system so that scientists are not under any pressure to sell products. Scientists, and everybody else, should be working for society, and for the goal of improving life for all of us. None of us should be working for a business, or for the goal of making a few executives and investors extremely wealthy.

We also have to develop a better legal system so that scientists can be free of crime networks that force them to promote certain polices. We need police departments that destroy crime networks rather than work for them. And we need a military that will destroy international crime networks rather than be tricked into wars.

I don't know much about GMO crops, but I doubt if they are harmful. The reason I don't think GMO crops are inherently dangerous is because humans have already modified a lot of animals and plants, and so has nature. Every living creature could be described as a "genetically modified organism", and some of them are dangerous, such as certain viruses, bacteria, and fungus. Furthermore, some creatures are annoying, such as mosquitoes and ticks.

There is nothing wrong with modifying the genetics of a creature, as long as we don't create dangerous creatures, or ruin the nutritional value of our foods.

A few centuries ago some farmers in Belgium began breeding carrots to make them orange. Prior to that, most of them were purple, and a few were white or yellow. Orange carrots are unnatural; they are artificial; they were genetically modified by humans.

Incidentally, some people claim that the purple pigment is a beneficial antioxidant, and that purple carrots have less sugar, so perhaps we should include purple carrots in our diet. This would be easy to do if the government had control of our meals, as I describe near the end of this document, because the government officials could tell the farmers to produce a particular mixture of orange and purple carrots that scientists think would be appropriate for our nutrition, rather than putting the carrots on display and letting the consumers pick what they want. As scientists learned more about human health, they would be able to alter the ratio of orange and purple carrots, and other foods, to make our meals even more nutritious.


Getting back to the GMO issue, the difference between what scientists do today and what farmers did centuries ago is that the scientists today are rapidly manipulating the DNA directly rather than through a very slow trial and error process of artificially fertilizing seeds and eggs.

All of the modern pet dogs could be described as genetically modified, also, because none of them are "natural". The dog that we refer to as "pit bulls", for example, were bred by humans to be fighters, and other dogs have been bred to be substitutes for babies, or substitutes for friends, or to help us hunt animals. All of the modern dogs are unnatural, artificial creatures.

The people who are worried about GMO crops should be more concerned about the people breeding dogs. Pit bulls, for example, are maiming and killing people on a regular basis. If our ancestors had not created pit bulls, and if instead some scientists at Monsanto created pit bulls through genetic manipulation of dogs, I suspect that most people would be shocked and outraged. They would complain that Monsanto is an evil business, and that the scientists have created a Frankenstein dog. The public would describe the scientists as crazy maniacs.

Not many people complain when violent dogs are created through breeding programs, but what difference does it make if people create a violent dog through breeding, or if Monsanto scientists create a violent dog through direct manipulation of DNA?

The pit bull should be described as unnatural, absurdly violent, and unacceptably dangerous, and we ought to consider exterminating the entire race. The pit bull owners and breeders would complain about such a policy, but as I mentioned earlier, when we devise policies, we should not care what individual citizens want. Instead, we should do what is best for society.

Imagine two cities that are identical in all respects, except that one allows pit bulls, and the other does not. Would the city that has pit bulls be a more pleasant city? No; it would be a more dangerous city. Nobody in that city would benefit from the pit bulls in any way; rather, a lot of people would suffer from attacks by the dogs. The people in that city would also have to spend more time in factories to produce medical supplies, and more time in hospitals to provide people with medical services. Furthermore, the city would be more filthy and noisy as a result of those dogs. Pit bulls are a burden with no benefit.

In a democracy, and in a free enterprise system, each of us decides for ourselves whether we want to eat organic foods, and the businesses and government officials are pandering to our decisions. Unfortunately, most people don't know the difference between organic and non-organic foods.

What is "organic"? If a crop is grown with sewage sludge, is it organic? Or is it contaminated by sewage? If a business is producing phosphorus fertilizer by digging phosphorus from the ground, does that fertilizer classify as natural and organic? If a business takes nitrogen from the air and sulfur from the ground and makes ammonium sulfate fertilizer, is that an organic, natural fertilizer?

What is the difference between water that was created by burning hydrogen, and water that comes from melted icebergs in Antarctica? Is one form of water "artificial" and the other "natural"?

One of the chemicals that give bananas their particular odor is isoamyl acetate. Businesses produce that chemical artificially, and they have been using it for decades as a banana flavor, and as a solvent for varnishes.

There was no Internet when I was a child, so we would get information from magazines, newspapers, and other children. I heard from somebody that the artificial banana flavor was used in industries as a solvent, and that caused me to be frightened to eat anything that contained artificial banana flavor. However, if the businesses are producing the exact same molecule as the banana plant, and if it is not contaminated with dangerous chemicals, then how is it any different from the "natural" banana flavor?

The oil in the skin of oranges is useful as a cleaning agent, but that doesn't mean we should be afraid to eat it. In small amounts, it may be a healthy addition to our diet. In large amounts, of course, it would be deadly, but everything is deadly in large amounts, including oxygen and water.

A banana gets its odor from more chemicals than isoamyl acetate, but the point I want to make is that we are letting ordinary people make decisions about issues they do not have the technical understanding and/or intelligence to deal with.

A society will have more intelligent laws and policies if they raise standards for people in leadership positions, and if they replace the free enterprise system and the democracy with an authoritarian government. Our leaders should be more educated than us, and we should learn something from them.

Unfortunately, we are not going to get those type of leaders when we have voters who are looking for leaders who pander to them. We need to restrict voters to the people who will truly analyze the leadership abilities of candidates.

A lot of our laws are senseless, and some have been created specifically to appease some group of selfish or neurotic people. For example, in California and many other states, the retail businesses that require memberships, such as Costco and Sam's Club, are not allowed to restrict the sale of alcoholic beverages to people with memberships.

If you want to purchase food from Costco, you must pay for a membership, but if you want to purchase alcohol, just walk into the store and purchase whatever you want. Why are we allowed to purchase alcohol without a membership? Is alcohol more important to us than food? Does that law make sense to you?

If a Costco store is in a state that has legalized marijuana, and if that Costco store decides to sell marijuana, will the government demand that Costco allow us purchase marijuana without a membership?

We cannot expect the citizens to provide a society with competent leadership. We need to create a Quality Control Department to occasionally review laws and government officials, hold the officials responsible for their actions, and routinely replace the officials who are doing the worst job.

The people who work in zoos regularly observe the animals, and if they notice that the animals are behaving in a strange manner, they investigate to determine whether there is something wrong with the environment. They will experiment with the environment in an attempt to cause the animals to behave in their "normal" manner.

Many pet owners also pass judgment on whether the animal is behaving properly. If the animal frequently gets sick, becomes fat, or has digestive problems, they will experiment with the food they provide their pet, and if the animal behaves strangely, they will experiment with the environment they provide for their pet.

If we would apply the same concept to ourselves, then we would eliminate secrecy and observe the behavior of the people in our city. If we notice a lot of people are behaving in an undesirable or unnatural manner, or if we notice people are becoming obese, lethargic, anorexic, or sick, we would investigate to determine if there is something about the food or environment that is causing the problem, and we would experiment with changes to our diet or environment in order to reduce the problem.

If there were aliens in another solar system, and if they had pet humans, they would produce a document about "The Care and Feeding of Pet Humans". Their document would explain what sort of foods to provide the pet humans, and how the pet humans should behave. It would have suggestions on what might be wrong about the diet or environment when the humans behave in certain, abnormal manners.

We don't produce anything similar to "The Care and Feeding of Pet Humans" because we don't want to think of ourselves as animals, or as pets, and we don't want to think of our cities as "zoo exhibits". However, if we can accept the evidence that we are nothing more than a species of monkey, then it should be obvious that we should indeed have the type of instruction manual that the zoos have for the animals.

Creating an instruction manual for humans is going to require a lot of scientific research and a lot of experiments because we don't yet know how to care for and feed humans. All we can say for certain is that much of what we are doing today is inappropriate.

For example, a significant percentage of the population is becoming obese, diabetic, and sickly, so we are obviously feeding ourselves inappropriately, but what is the correct diet? We don't yet know.

For another example, there is something seriously wrong with our environment because the male and female humans are having an increasingly difficult time in forming stable relationships, but how do we fix this problem? What is wrong with our environment? Why are so many men and women irritating one another and having trouble finding a compatible spouse? How much arguing should we regard as "normal" for a married couple? Why are there so many spouses trying to murder one another?

We don't know much about the emotional and intellectual characteristics of men and women, or how our minds change as we age, so we are going to have to do a lot of trial and error experiments, such as experimenting with courtship procedures and weddings.

As soon as we start these experiments, we will start learning how to improve relationships between men and women. After decades of experiments, we will be able to create a noticeably better social environment. Men and women will have an easier time finding a compatible spouse, and forming stable, pleasant relationships.

In other documents I've made some suggestions on what we could experiment with in order to improve our environment. For example, I think our democracy and our free enterprise system are encouraging us to behave like spoiled brats because both of those systems encourage us to focus on our particular emotional cravings, rather than think about what is best for society.

We want businesses and government officials to pander to us, but that environment encourages selfish, arrogant behavior. Replacing our economic system and government system with something similar to what businesses use would encourage us to focus on society, and that should dampen our selfishness and arrogance, which in turn should bring noticeable improvements to our friendships, marriages, and business relationships.

We should not encourage children to focus on money.

Another suggestion I've made is that we should design cities so that everybody has virtually the same home and level of material wealth, and nobody gets any special pampering. I think this will improve life for us in a lot of different ways, such as:

• It eliminates our tendency to waste our time on a competitive battle to acquire the largest pile of material items.

• It allows the adults to focus on other aspects of life, such as social and recreational activities.

• For teenagers, it frees them of the stress and work of acquiring the basic necessities to start their adult life.

• For a teenage girl, it gives her the freedom to look for a husband that she wants to live with rather than be concerned about whether he can provide her with financial support.

• For a teenage boy, he will be free of the concern that if he gets a divorce, his wife will take half of his possessions, and that he will also have to pay alimony.

To summarize this concept, by making people equal in material wealth, we shift the emphasis from material wealth to enjoying people, helping to improve society, and enjoying this beautiful universe. I think this will provide us with a much more satisfying life.

If we start building new cities and experimenting with our culture, we have a dilemma to deal with. Specifically, when we make a change to the culture, how will we know if it is truly an "improvement" rather than just a "change"?

This issue might be easier to understand if you consider how it applies to engineers. If you tell an engineer to improve a toaster oven, he has the dilemma of figuring out which aspect to change, and then he has to determine whether he has actually improved the oven, or simply made a change to it.

Businesses frequently boast that a product is "new and improved", but sometimes all they have done is change something trivial. For an extreme example, if an engineer changes the color of the paint on a toaster oven, the business might boast that they have a new and improved oven, but is it really an "improvement"?

When we start experimenting with our social activities, sports, recreational activities, schools, and other culture, it will be easy for us to make changes, but how do we know when the changes are actually beneficial?

One method is as I mentioned in regards to a zoo; as we improve our environment, we should notice that people become less frustrated, spend less time fighting, and form more stable relationships.

Another way of determining whether we have truly improved our social environment is to observe old people to see if they enjoy reminiscing about their life, or if they want to ignore it.

I think that when we have figured out how to provide ourselves with a truly pleasant social environment, the old people will have thousands of pleasant memories about their childhood, and especially their teenage years and young adult years.

I think that our teenage years should be some of the most exciting because it is when we have developed enough intelligence that we no longer need to rely on our mother. It is the time when we start to learn a useful skill, discover the opposite sex, and start joining in on the adult social and recreational activities. It should be a fascinating and exciting time period, and we should accumulate a lot of very pleasant memories.

If we maintain the type of video database that I've suggested here, and provide the city with lots of high quality video rooms with high quality video screens, as in the photo below, many of the old people will enjoy occasionally getting together to watch the videos of themselves and their friends. As they reminisce about their life, they will essentially be singing along with Louis Armstrong's What a Wonderful World.

Most old people today, however, do not seem interested in reminiscing about their life. Their decades of arguments and awkward situations with the opposite sex, their struggles to find a job that they enjoy, and their suffering from other problems, have provided them with so many miserable memories that they would rather forget about their past.

Their unpleasant memories cause them to want to live longer because they like to fantasize that they will soon be able to enjoy life. Death frightens them because they feel that if they die tomorrow, their life will have been a waste of time, and a lot of suffering for nothing. They are sad when they notice gray hair and wrinkles. They don't want to sing What a Wonderful World as they get old; rather, they want injections of children's blood.

Some people believe that the people who enjoy life the most are going to be the most afraid of death, but I think it is the other way around. I think the people who truly enjoy life will have the least fear of death because they will have experienced so much pleasure that they will not feel as if they have missed out on life. It is the people whose lives have been miserable who will feel as if death is sad and cruel.

If you have trouble understanding that concept, consider how it applies to food. When a person has a truly tasty, healthy meal, he will be satisfied with it for hours. By comparison, when a person eats a meal that he does not like the taste of, or which gives him digestive problems, he will not receive any satisfaction, and he will want another meal that is better. If his next meal is also miserable, he will continue to wish for a meal that is satisfying. If every meal he eats is miserable, he will accumulate thousands of miserable memories, and he will spend his life fantasizing of a meal that he enjoys.

People who do not enjoy life will accumulate thousands of miserable memories of life, and they will be forever fantasizing about enjoying life. When they get near death, they will feel that it is not fair for them to die yet.

By comparison, when a person has enjoyed his life, he will have thousands of pleasant memories to reminisce about, which will stimulate wonderful feelings. Death will not seem nearly so horrible.

A lot of the wealthy and famous people are struggling to remain young, and they are frightened of death, and they claim it is because they enjoy life, but I think it is because they have had an unpleasant life. I think the reason they became so wealthy and famous is because they were not enjoying their life, and they assumed that wealth and fame would bring them happiness. They acquired a big mansion with lots of things inside of it, and some became famous, but their mind is full of miserable memories. This is especially true for the people who acquired their wealth and fame through crime; they will have lots of unpleasant memories of committing crimes and of being frightened about getting caught.

Criminals may believe that they are enjoying life when they accumulate wealth from their crimes, but humans do not want to be criminals. We want to be admired by other people, not despised by them. We want people to be our friends and respect us, not wish that they could kill us. Criminals will receive some momentary titillation when they get away with a crime, but overall they are tormenting themselves.

Once we start experimenting with new cities we will know for sure, but I suspect that as we improve the social environment, we will notice that old people become increasingly less frightened of death.

People throughout history have been whining for more freedom and less government supervision, but if we can provide our society with a truly honest, competent, and intelligent group of government officials, then we don't need much freedom. The better our government is, the less important freedom becomes.

Perhaps the easiest way to understand this concept is to imagine that there really is an all-knowing, incredibly loving and intelligent God, and that he decides to stop hiding from us, make himself visible, and provide each of us with advice on how to live our lives, and how to set up our nations.

It should be obvious that all of us would benefit because he would be able to provide each of us with incredibly intelligent advice that was tailored to each of our particular mental and physical characteristics. God would also have the most intelligent suggestions on how to design our cities, factories, job environments, and diet so that all of us remain in optimum physical and mental health, and we all enjoy life as much as possible.

We would be fools to disregard God's advice and do what we think is best. Even if we do not understand everything that God is telling us, we should follow his advice because his advice would be better than anything we could create for ourselves.

Now imagine the other extreme. Imagine a retarded human were to provide you with advice on how you should live your life. It should be obvious that you should ignore everything he tells you and make your own decisions because even if you are not very intelligent or educated, you would make better decisions than a retarded person.

Now consider how this concept applies to governments. If the voters provide a nation with government officials who are dishonest, involved with pedophilia, incompetent, or the blackmailed puppets of a crime network, the citizens should disregard everything the government officials say, including their laws, and make their own decisions on what to do. They should rebel against that type of government. They should demand the freedom to do as they please.

At the other extreme, imagine a group of voters who select some truly responsible, honest government officials who are more intelligent and have more self-control than the majority of people. Those government officials would be able to design cities, social activities, and laws that are more useful than anything the other citizens could create, and so we would benefit by letting those government officials dominate society. We would be fools to complain that we want the government out of our lives, and that we need the freedom to do as we please.

The point I'm trying to make is that the more talented our government officials are, the less important freedom is to the citizens.

In the world today, most people are focusing on getting more freedom, and reducing the influence of government. It would make more sense for us to focus on improving the government. All of us would benefit if we could create a better government, but we are not going to gain anything by giving ourselves more freedom to do as we please.

Giving people more freedom is returning to the life of an animal or a prehistoric savage. The human race needs to advance beyond the animals.

An example of how a high quality government would be beneficial to the citizens is in regard to food. In the cities I'm suggesting we experiment with, none of the homes would have kitchens or dining rooms, so everybody would have to get their meals from restaurants. Furthermore, the restaurant chefs would be under the control of the government, rather than pandering to the citizens. Therefore, the restaurants would operate in the manner that the government thinks is best, not according to what is most emotionally titillating to the people.

The government would also be in control of the farms, food distribution services, and food processing businesses, giving the government complete control of which foods are produced, in what quantity, and how they are processed.

This type of a city would provide the government with as much control over our meals as the military has over the meals for the sailors on a submarine, or as NASA has over the meals of the astronauts in the space station.

Therefore, the government will be able to conduct all sorts of experiments with meals and food production, such as restricting the quantities and/or types of food that fat people are allowed to eat, thereby forcing them to lose weight. The government could also experiment with restricting sugar in food recipes, or restricting sugar to the fat and sickly people.

With the government in control of the farmers, food processing businesses, and restaurants, the government could control everybody's diet, just like parents can control the meals of their children, and like the military can control the meals of the sailors on a submarine. The government would let people choose their meals, but the government could put restrictions on the quantities and types of foods each person has access to.

In the society I suggest, the city's computers are keeping track of everybody in real time, just like the FAA keeps track of airplanes, as you can see at this website, or this. This allows the computer to know when a person is going into a restaurant, and that will allow the computer to prevent each person from eating excessively, or getting access to too much of a certain type of food.

Some people would respond that this type of city is treating the adults as if they are children. Should adults have the freedom to eat whatever they please? Or should the government monitor our diet, and put restrictions on us if we become sickly, anorexic, or fat?

Until we conduct experiments, we will not know for sure, but most people need to be treated like children because they cannot make wise decisions for themselves. Most people have trouble controlling their consumption of food, alcohol, and other drugs, and most people also have trouble controlling their temper, arrogance, sexual cravings, and other emotions. None of us want to be treated like a child, but most people would benefit from it.

Imagine two different cities are identical in all respects except that in one city the adults have the freedom to eat whatever they please, whenever they please, and in any quantity they please. In the other city, the city's computers are watching the people and putting restrictions on a person's meals when the computers assume that the person is making a bad decision.

Which of those two cities do you think you would prefer to live in? Although none of us like the concept of computers preventing us from accessing certain foods or restaurants, I think almost everybody would prefer to live in that type of city.

There is no perfection in life. Both of those two imaginary cities would have advantages and disadvantages, and I think most people would come to the conclusion that the advantages of restricting our diet is worth the disadvantages.

The city that provides people with the freedom to choose their own meals would be identical to the cities of today in which a significant portion of the population is overweight, and many people are sickly or have diabetes as a result of their excessive or inappropriate food consumption.

The other city would be significantly different from the cities of today. They would look different, sound different, and be significantly different in regards to the work people do. For some examples:

• Fewer people would have diabetes, and that reduces the number of people who have to be involved with healthcare, producing insulin, and working on assembly lines to produce hypodermic needles.

• They would not need to produce clothing for overweight people, so their clothing factories and warehouses would be smaller, which reduces the number of people and resources needed for construction and maintenance. It also makes the sharing of expensive clothing more practical.

• The people would be in better physical health, so they would be more physically active. There would be more people walking in the parks, swimming in the pools, riding bicycles, getting together to sing songs, and engaging in other social and recreational activities, rather than lounging around their home. There would be no fat children, so there would be more children engaged in activities, also.

To an observer, the city would appear to have a higher population because there would be so many people getting out of their house during their leisure time.

• Without any overweight people, everybody would be more productive at their jobs. There would also be less sickness and diabetes, further increasing productivity. The greater productivity would mean that the city would be wealthier, more decorative, cleaner, and more advanced.

• The city would not have to produce as much food, which means the farms could be smaller, which makes greenhouses more practical. It also reduces the amount of labor required for distributing food, producing meals, and cleaning up after the meals.

Living in a city where the meals are being restricted provides so many advantages that I think most people would prefer it over a city were there are lots of overweight, sickly, and diabetic people. Living in that city where freedom is restricted would be like living on a submarine in which everybody is in good health, physically active, and contributing to the work that needs to be done.

Since it is unpleasant to have computers watching over us and restricting our diet, it is important to realize that we can improve the situation by restricting reproduction to the people who need the least supervision. That would cause the human race to evolve into a species that doesn't need computers to restrict their food consumption.

Providing a person with a freedom is useful only if the person can make wise decisions about what to do with that freedom. Otherwise we are essentially giving a razor blade to a baby.

Some people may respond that we don't yet know enough about human health for a computer to make good decisions about our diet. However, as I have emphasized many times, don't react to problems with fear. Don't look for excuses to do nothing.

It is true that we don't yet know much about human health, but instead of becoming frightened by our lack of knowledge, it is more sensible to get involved with improving our situation. For example:

• We need to change our economic system so that scientists can study human health without being pressured to promote certain products.
• We need to reduce crime so that scientists are not under pressure by crime networks to promote certain theories, such as carbon taxes.
• We need to restrict leadership positions to the people who have an explorer's personality so that we don't suffer from conservatives who want to mindlessly follow their ancestors, or from liberals who are attracted to irrational fantasies and "feel sorry for me" policies.
• We need to keep a database of everybody's health and medical issues so that scientists can get a better understanding of how we differ from one another, and how children differ from adults, and how men differ from women, and how different races are different.

Instead of becoming frightened that a government will enforce idiotic food policies on us, we should instead put effort into working with one another to create a government that we can trust and be proud of.

The same concepts apply to issues besides food, such as guns, crime, material wealth, feminism, and abortion. For example, imagine two cities that are identical in all respects, except that in one of them the criminals are punished with jail and given psychological counseling, and in the other city, the criminals are either restricted to certain neighborhoods, or evicted from the city, and the criminals are also prevented from reproducing.

Although all of us would be upset if one of our relatives, friends, or children were evicted or restricted, I think almost everybody would prefer living in that city. For some reasons:

• It would be a visually more pleasant city because it would have such a low level of crime that the city would not need rolldown doors, high intensity security lights, or policemen to roam the city 24 hours a day. There would be no graffiti or vandalism, and none of the bicycles would have locks.

• Women and children would not be afraid to be outside, not even at night. They would be able to ride crowded trains without worrying about men groping them.

• If some people wanted to go swimming in a pond or creek, they could leave their clothing, purses, and wallet sitting on the land without worrying that somebody will steal their items.

• Since the criminals would be prohibited from reproducing, then instead of bizarre behavior increasing every generation, each generation would become better behaved, eventually resulting in a city in which everybody is so well behaved that the police department operates on a temporary basis only when needed, and almost nobody is evicted, thereby eliminating that particular stress from everybody's life.

In a free enterprise system, we can choose to make our own meals, or we can choose go to restaurants that pander to us. This provides us with tremendous freedom to eat whatever we please, but I suggest restricting our food freedom and letting the government dominate our meals.

While this might seem to be oppressive, if we can provide ourselves with a higher quality government, it would be equivalent to letting parents dominate the meals of their children.

With a proper government, we will have better quality meals, better tasting meals, and a significant reduction in the amount of labor and resources needed for the production of food, meals, and cleanup.

I created this video to show you how easy it is to make bread by grinding grains, and when the government has complete control of the economy, we can go even further, such as leave grains and nuts in their husks and shells until we are ready to use them, thereby keeping them even more fresh, which makes them better tasting and more nutritious. We could develop some small machines to grind grain and make bread so that all of the restaurants could provide us with bread that was made only minutes ago from freshly ground grains.

By having control of our meals, the government would be able to do the type of meal planning that parents do for their family. For example, if a father were to go fishing and catch some fish, he doesn't ask the family if they want to eat the fish. Rather, he tells them that they are going to have fish for dinner.

Imagine if, instead, the mother and father were to behave like businesses in a free enterprise system. In such a case, the father would put his fresh fish on the counter in a bucket of ice, and his wife would put pork, chicken, and other meats on the counter, and then they would let the children decide which meats, if any, they want to eat. The meats that were not chosen would go back in the refrigerator, and the mother and father would repeat the process the next day.

The meats that were not selected would become increasingly stinky. Unless the children eventually chose some of that old, stinky meat, the parents would either discard it in the trash, or grind it up to make sausages, meatballs, or burgers, and then mask the disgusting stink with sauces and spices.

In a free enterprise system, there is an incredible waste of food because the retail stores have to provide an excess of food, put it on display, and hope that the consumers purchase it. The farmers cannot plan how much food to produce because they cannot control what the consumers will purchase, so they produce an excess of food, also.

Consumers are also causing a lot of fruit and vegetables to be wasted because so many consumers will squeeze fruit and vegetables to see if they are right, and then put them back after damaging them.

By putting the government in control of the meals, and restricting the freedom that the consumers have, we can make the situation significantly more efficient.

When the government has control over the meals, they would slaughter only as many chickens, cows, and other animals to make enough meals for the people and guests of their city. The goal of the government would be to produce only as much food each day as will be eaten so that there is as little waste as possible.

As different fruits ripen during the year, the government would tell the restaurants to alter the meals so that more of that particular fruit is served at that time. If there is a large amount of a particular meat available at some point in time, the government would tell the restaurants to serve more of that meat.

For example, the fishermen would be told to catch a certain amount of fish, but since they cannot control what they catch, if they catch an unusually large amount one day, the government would not want the fish to be wasted so they would slaughter fewer chickens, pigs, and other animals, and they would tell the restaurants to offer more fish and fewer other meats.

Most people would not notice or care that the restaurants were offering more fish meals one day, and more chicken on another day. The only people who might notice are those who eat their meals late in the evening, after everybody else, and were told by the restaurants that they are out of the meat that they want, and have to have fish, or chicken, or whatever was in a larger supply that day.

This brings me to another difference between life in this city and life in a free enterprise system. In our free enterprise system, many restaurants stock an excess of food, and some serve meals continuously from the morning to late at night, so that they can offer their customers whatever food they ask for, and at all hours of the day and week.

Parents do not provide this type of service for the children because it is very inefficient. Parents set meals to be at certain times of the day, and if a child is told that dinner starts at 6 PM, and if he comes home at 8 PM, he might discover that the food that he wanted has already been eaten by other family members.

In the economy that I am suggesting, the restaurants would operate like a family. Meals would be provided only at certain times of the day. Furthermore, the restaurants would have only as much perishable food as they expected to use that day. Therefore, people who are late for breakfast or dinner would sometimes discover that their choices in food have been reduced.

Those people might complain that a free enterprise system provides better meals, but we have to ignore what individual citizens want and think about what is best for society as a group. The reason families operate in this manner is because it is much more efficient.

In a society that doesn't have a peasant class, we need to eliminate as much unnecessary work as possible. By reducing wasted food, we don't have to produce as much food on the farms, which allows us to have smaller farms, which makes it more practical for us to build greenhouses that are sealed from the environment, which in turn makes it more practical for us to grow any type of food we please with no regard to weather, diseases, or insects.

By being more efficient with food, we also raise and slaughter fewer animals; process less food in the factories; transport less food through the transportation systems; and produce less food trash.

The city would have a variety of restaurants offering a variety of meals, but each restaurant would operate like a family. Specifically, they would maintain only as much fresh food as they expect to serve that day so that there is no leftover food. Therefore, people who came late for a meal would find their choices in food have been reduced.

The restaurants would stock a variety of frozen and dried foods, so nobody would go hungry, and nobody could justify complaining that they don't have enough choices. The only items that the restaurants would have a limited supply of would be the fresh fish and meats, and the fruits that have a very short shelf life.

Some popular restaurants will run out of food occasionally, and so a person who comes late for a meal will have to go to another restaurant and eat some other meal, but is that really going to cause him to suffer? I don't think so. Even in our free enterprise system, we occasionally encounter a restaurant that has run out of a particular type of food, but who is suffering because of it?

In other documents I suggested that cities have greenhouses, and I will now point out that I think we should put resources into making some of the greenhouses sealed from the environment so that we don't need pesticides or herbicides to control diseases, insects, or weeds.

Furthermore, we should make the greenhouses much more automated. For example, the land area could have metal tracks similar to railroad tracks, and tractors would ride on them to plant seeds and harvest crops. People would never need to go into the greenhouses to do harvesting, spraying of pesticides, or removing of weeds, so the crops could be grown at a higher density.

The conservatives, who are frightened of changes, would probably resist my proposal by pointing out that the greenhouses I am suggesting would be very expensive. However, my reaction is, so what? Why are we living? Are we living simply to produce food at a low cost? Who is going to suffer if we put a lot of our resources into greenhouses?

Our societies are currently putting a lot of resources and labor into the production and maintenance of automobiles, roads, parking lots, and the medical services for people injured from automobile accidents.

By creating a city in which automated, underground trains connect clusters of tall buildings, we can reduce the resources needed for transportation, and that allows us to shift some of our labor and resources into greenhouses.

We are also putting a lot of labor and resources into Hollywood, pets, gambling casinos, cosmetics, and jewelry. And we also put a lot of resources into supporting Israel, and the fraudulent wars that they instigate.

The Gros Michel variety of bananas that people used to eat are no longer available because diseases have destroyed most of the farms. There is now a concern that a new disease is going to destroy its replacement, the Cavendish variety of banana. If we continue on the path that we are on right now, insects and diseases are going to build up a tolerance for all of our pesticides and herbicides, and we will have to continuously switch to less desirable varieties of fruits and vegetables.

By putting so much of our labor and resources into automobiles, pets, and projects other than greenhouses, we are causing our food supplies to become contaminated with pesticides and herbicides, and we are inadvertently breeding the insects, weeds, and diseases into increasingly tougher species.

Furthermore, by not developing better harvesting equipment, farmers need vegetables and fruits that are tough enough to survive the brutal harvesting techniques that the machines are putting them through today. This is giving us terrible quality apricots, tomatoes, and other fruits and vegetables.

If we put more resources into developing machines to harvest fruits and vegetables in a more gentle manner, we will get better quality food. And if we put more resources into greenhouses that are sealed from the environment, we will not contaminate ourselves or the environment with poisons.

Some of the businesses that produce flowers are developing advanced greenhouses, such as the one in the photo below which has tracks above the plants. Machines travel down the tracks to care for and harvest the flowers.

We should take this concept even further and develop greenhouses that can grow food for us, and in sealed, sterilized environments. The only thing that's stopping us from developing such advanced farms are the voters, and the dishonest, corrupt, and disgusting leaders that they have selected for us. We are not going to get advanced farms from psycho businessmen whose only interest in life is to become a pampered billionaire, or from psycho government officials who want to use children for sex or to drink their blood.

If we can find enough pioneers and explorers who have the courage to tell the voters to shut up and stay out of world affairs, then we can start the process of raising standards for people in leadership positions, and creating a better world.

Furthermore, we could put some greenhouses in the areas of the world where people don't want to live, such as the deserts, and grow the items that can be easily shipped from distant locations, such as long fiber cotton. This would allow us to produce the higher quality cotton without poisons, and with no concern for the weather. Nobody wants to live in those areas, so why not use them for greenhouses?

There is no right or wrong way to design a society. We simply have to decide what we want our priorities to be. Do we want our priorities to be automobiles and pets? Do we want to continue providing our leaders with gigantic mansions, yachts, and private jets?

Or do we want to shift our priorities to providing ourselves with better quality meals; apartments that are surrounded by parks and gardens; and a reduction in poisons?

We have tremendous options for our future. We can follow the conservative philosophy of reducing government, promoting religions, carrying weapons in public, and giving people more freedom to do as they please, thereby creating a life similar to that of a prehistoric savage.

Or we could follow the liberal philosophy of feeling sorry for the retards, criminals, and psychos, and help them to reproduce, thereby continuously increasing the number of miserable, ugly, deformed, stinky, anti-social, psychotic people who hate life, love to pout and have tantrums, contemplate suicide on a regular basis, and are envious of people who are good-looking and healthy.

Or we could disregard what the majority of people want, get together with the small number of explorers and pioneers, and start experimenting with new cities and a new culture that is based on the scientific evidence that humans are just a species of monkeys.

Can you see your monkey-like qualities? If so, do you have enough self-control over those monkey-like qualities to push yourself into becoming one of the pioneers who has the courage to create a better world?
If so, then let's start the experiments!