Hufschmid's main page
Previous comments

My comments on
some recent events

29 Dec 2015

Who will win the battle over refugees?
Why are we so easily manipulated?
All problems should be analyzed
What kind of personality does Donald Trump have?
We are winning the war, but at what cost?
Can you support higher standards of behavior?

Who will win the battle over refugees?

Who is pushing us to accept refugees?

According to the news reports, more than half of the American citizens and governors oppose bringing refugees into America. Since the American government is supposed to give the people what they want, we should not bring refugees into America. So, why are we doing it?

Refugees cross into Hungary.
Some leave a trail of litter.
One reason is because of the United Nations. The United Nations has been actively involved in spreading refugees around the world almost since the day they were created, and they have pushed nations into accepting refugees by pressuring them to sign such treaties as the 1951 Refugee Convention and the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

By signing those treaties, America and Europe put themselves into a dilemma. If we refuse to follow those treaties, then we encourage other nations to disregard whatever treaties they don't like.

Many of our government officials are also pushing us into accepting refugees. In 2014, Ted Cruz supported the importation of refugees. He recently changed his attitude, perhaps in order to compete with Donald Trump.

There are also dozens of private organizations pushing us into accepting refugees. In November 2015, I posted links to this article and this article about 12 Jewish groups that are pushing the American government into accepting refugees. There are also lots of charities and Christian organizations involved with importing refugees, such as the World Relief organization and Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service.

It is important to note that the US government gives tax money to some of these organizations. For example, during 2015, the Church World Service received about $50 million from the US government, which was about two thirds of their income. Some of these organizations might fail without our tax money.

Some religious organizations are also helping illegal immigrants. For example, when the Obama administration announced their plan to deport illegal immigrants from Central America, churches involved with the Sanctuary Movement responded that they will offer refuge to the illegal immigrants. If they were offering refuge for burglars, would they get away with that, also?

There are also private organizations helping the illegal aliens and refugees, such as, which was created by Mark Zuckerberg, and is funded by such people as Bill Gates and Marissa Mayer. Incidentally, despite the absurd wealth of Gates and Zuckerberg, their organization begs for donations.

Most refugee supporters are hypocrites

“We don't have to practice multi-culturalism, but you do!”

The World Relief organization boasts that they have distributed more than 250,000 refugees to more than 80 nations over the past 35 years. They want the world to become multi-cultural, but they will not apply the same philosophy to their own organization.

For example, an Iraqi citizen who had been an interpreter for the US government eventually emigrated to America. He became a volunteer with World Relief to help them resettle Iraqi refugees. After working with them for six months, one of the managers suggested that he apply for a job with the organization, but after he did so, he was told that they could not hire him because he is not a Christian.

Stephan Bauman, who is now the president and CEO of the organization, justified their discrimination because it “allows us to preserve our core identity and value.

In other documents I have advocated that organizations, including cities and nations, be allowed to discriminate against their members so that they can produce a team of people who are compatible with each other. Some of the organizations that push multi-culturalism on us are discriminating against their members, but they demand that other organizations and nations practice multi-culturalism. Some of these hypocritical groups also want us to follow quotas for women, minorities, and disabled people.

Furthermore, it is important to note that the World Relief organization was willing to let the Iraqi be a volunteer, but they did not want him as an employee. They were willing to use him for free, but they did not want to bring him into their team or pay him for his services. They wanted him in the role of a slave, or an animal, not a friend. How is their treatment of that Iraqi any better than a business that uses children as a low-cost source of labor?

In other documents I recommended getting rid of the "peasant class". I think we are hurting the world when we allow organizations, nations, and wealthy people to use other races and nationalities as a source of cheap labor. If we do not want a person to become a member of our team, we should keep him out of our team rather than use him as a substitute for an animal.

“Share your neighborhoods with refugees, not ours!

Some of the 450,000 Syrian refugees that Germany accepted during 2015 had to sleep at a train station in Germany.
Another important aspect of the refugee issue is that many of the people involved with importing refugees are very wealthy. They have large homes, large amounts of land, and lots of money. Bill Gates, for example, has such a large house that he could provide hundreds of refugees with a place to stay as they learned English and looked for a job, and he could easily pay for their food.

Many of these wealthy people also have a lot of property, and the refugees could set up tents on their property rather than along highways and other public areas.

However, Angela Merkel, Bill Gates, and the other wealthy people who are pushing us into accepting refugees are refusing to share what they have. Instead, they tell us to share our more crowded neighborhoods and train stations with the refugees.

Also note that the wealthy people want us to fund the operations through tax money and donations. According to this resport, British taxpayers will pay "at least 10,000 per refugee for the first year". How much will taxpayers pay for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th years?

Britain is planning to take only 20,000 refugees, but Germany is taking hundreds of thousands. Do European businesses have enough job openings to hire all of the refugees? If not, how much will the taxpayers spend to support the unemployed refugees? Does Europe have enough empty apartments or homes for the refugees?

Why don't we stop the cause of the problem?

It should be noted that none of the people who want us to accept refugees or illegal immigrants are interested in stopping the cause of the problem. They are not encouraging discussions or analyses of why millions of Syrians, Somalians, Ukrainians, and other people want to abandon their nation, and they are not offering or asking for solutions to this problem.

A recent poll claims that about half the population of Syria wants to leave Syria. That is about 10 million people. Photos of their cities, such as below, make me understand why they want to leave, but how does it make sense to send half of a nation's population to the already overcrowded cities of Europe and America?

Furthermore, since the fighting in Syria is continuing, the other half of the population might eventually want to leave. Are we going to take every Syrian and leave behind an abandoned wasteland?

The Israelis are still tormenting the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and elsewhere. What if those Palestinians decide to leave? Are we going to accept millions of Palestinians, also? There are also lots of people in Africa, East Europe, and Asia who want to abandon their country.

The Syrian refugees are just a small portion of the people who are trying to get into America and Europe. During 2015, more than a million refugees and migrants entered Europe. Most of them were from East Europe, Africa, or Asia, not Syria.

In addition to refugees, a lot of people are moving to Europe simply for the jobs and the better living conditions. For example, Germany took almost a million immigrants during 2015, many from East Europe. Furthermore, many of the migrants are coming into Europe through smuggling operations. The lack of interest among government officials and citizens in stopping crime and corruption is allowing these smuggling networks to thrive, and so they will continue smuggling people into Europe.

To make this problem worse, after we allow a "small number" of refugees and migrants to become citizens, we allow them to bring their family members. Therefore, allowing a "small number" of refugees and illegal aliens to become citizens can result in a significant increase in the population.

If Germany continues to take refugees and other migrants at the rate of nearly a million per year, Germany will eventually be as crowded as Hong Kong.

They are importing refugees, not inviting them.

During the world wars, Americans invited many Europeans into America. We accepted those refugees as friends and team members. However, we are not treating the Syrian refugees in the same manner.

The people who are pushing us into accepting refugees are not treating those refugees as "friends". The World Relief organization will not even hire them! They are not "inviting" the refugees into America or Europe. Rather, they are treating them just like they treat orphans, homeless people, and trash. They are "importing" the refugees into America and Europe, and then "dumping" them somewhere.

Nobody is providing leadership

Donald Trump claims to oppose the refugees and illegal immigrants, but as of December 2015, all he has accomplished is to inspire more people to become actively involved in helping refugees and illegal immigrants.

For example, the National Partnership for New Americans (NPNA) used his photo (to the right) to motivate people, and the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights is also using Trump to motivate people. Some people are hoping to use Trump to convince at least 1 million Hispanic immigrants to become voters and vote against Trump.

If any of the candidates were serious about stopping the refugees and illegal immigrants, they would propose stopping the Americans who are importing refugees and helping the illegal aliens, and they would stop the government programs that are funding these groups. They would also demand changes to the United Nations treaties, and they would show an interest in stopping the problem that is creating refugees.

Many Republicans oppose the importation of refugees, but none of the Republicans have anything intelligent to say about this issue. We learn nothing by listening to Republican government officials or candidates. All they do is titillate the Republican voters with angry remarks. None of our journalists, Hollywood celebrities, or professors have anything intelligent to say about the issue, either.

Jews seem to dominate the importation of refugees

The people who are pushing us into accepting refugees have no interest in helping the Syrians or finding a solution to the problems in Syria. Their true motive becomes obvious when you note that a large percentage of them are Jews. The president and CEO of the International Rescue Committee is a Jew you might recognize, David Miliband of Britain.

If Jews had a history of helping the world, then we would be grateful that they are involved with the refugee problem, but the Internet has allowed us to discover that Jews have been secretly instigating fights for centuries.

Decades ago the Jews were amazingly successful with their operations. Certainly those of you who read my documents are aware that the Jews tricked many nations into wars; assassinated President Kennedy and lots of other people; and blew up the World Trade Center buildings with explosives. However, the Jews never got in trouble for any of their crimes, not even when they were caught at it. For example, in 1946 they got caught pretending to be Arabs and detonating explosives in the King David Hotel, and in 1967 they were caught attacking the USS Liberty, but they did not get in trouble for either of those crimes.

However, the Internet has changed the situation significantly during the past 15 years. The Internet has allowed us to discover the truth about the Jews. There are now millions of people around the world who are putting up resistance to their diabolical operations, and who are too knowledgeable about their tricks and propaganda to be easily fooled. As a result, the Jews have been failing repeatedly to instigate wars in Iran, North Korea, China, and other nations, and they failed at hundreds of other operations.

The Jews have also lost their ability to incite racial riots. In 1992, the Jews were successful in tricking a tremendous number of black Americans into rioting over the Rodney King beating, but during the past few years the Jews have been failing to instigate riots over police actions that were much more violent.

The Jews may not arrange for policemen to kill black thugs, but whenever such an incident occurs, they rush to the area to incite hatred and riots. Fortunately, the Jews are having an increasingly difficult time finding black people who can be fooled into starting riots over these killings. There are so few black people showing up for the demonstrations that Jews have to find people of other races to join the demonstrations, and they also bring people in from other cities.

The Jews try to keep their involvement in the demonstrations a secret, but this information comes out sometimes. For example, during the demonstrations in Ferguson, Missouri over the death of Michael Brown, the police arrested some people, and they discovered that many of those people were from other areas, and one of them was Hedy Epstein, a 90-year-old Holocaust survivor.

Epstein was arrested for refusing to disperse, not for lying about being a Holocaust survivor.

You might find it interesting to note that after Epstein was arrested, some Jews attacked her for lying about being a Holocaust survivor. Debbie Schlussel described her as a "self-hating Jew".

Why would Jews expose her as a liar? Only they know for sure, but perhaps because it is one of their ways of giving credibility to their false opposition. Epstein's primary activity was supporting the Palestinians, so perhaps the Jews attacked her in order to make it appear as if she really is a supporter of Palestinians, and that the Jews hate her.

Hopefully you realize that the Jews try to control their opposition by infiltrating every organization. There are Jews pretending to be Nazis, KKK members, Democrats, Republicans, Muslims, Catholics, and 9/11 truth activists. Actually, from my contact with people in the 9/11 truth movement, the Jews did not merely infiltrate the 9/11 truth movement; rather, they started the movement, and they dominate it. Almost everybody in the 9/11 truth movement is either a Jew or one of their puppets. I would not be surprised if Jews are also dominating the leadership of the Nazi groups, KKK groups, Scientology, and some Christian churches.

Regardless of why the Jews attacked Epstein, she lies about being a Holocaust survivor, so the Palestinians and black people would be foolish to trust her. Actually, we would be foolish to trust any Jew. All of the Holocaust survivors are liars, and I have yet to find a Jew who is honest about the 9/11 attack. History shows that Jews have never been interested in helping us or being honest with us.

The Jews have been contacting me ever since 2002, and although they pretend to be my friend, they are actually trying to find my weaknesses; manipulate me into believing stupid theories; and trick me into doing things that will hurt my health or get me into trouble. The Jews don't want to help me or anybody else. They want to control us; manipulate us; deceive us; exploit us; and kill us.

Since the Jews have been failing in their plans to take over the world, they are now hoping to use refugees to instigate fights. The Jews can also conduct terrorist attacks and blame them on Muslim terrorists who got into our nations through the refugee program.

Although the Jews will certainly fail to create significant fights with the refugees, the longer we do nothing to stop the Jews, the more refugees they will import into our nations, and the more bombings and shootings they will conduct and blame on Muslims.

There are millions of people in Syria, Somalia, and other nations who want to escape to America or Europe, and such a large number of refugees can have a significant effect on the social environment and economy of the small, overcrowded, European nations. For example, how many of those refugees are going to be able to find a job? There are already millions of Europeans who do not have the ability and/or desire to handle a modern job, and bringing a million refugees and other migrants into Europe every year is going to make the unemployment situation even worse.

Europe also suffers from cramped homes, overcrowded trains, and narrow streets. The refugees and migrants will make the overcrowding even worse.

“Don't worry, we will take only a few refugees.”

The people who push us into accepting refugees insist that we will accept only a small number of refugees, and that some of those refugees will eventually go back to their home nation. If more people had a better understanding of history and human behavior, they would realize that this is a common trick that people use to manipulate one another. We could describe this technique as "If you give someone an inch, they will take a mile". Or for the metric nations, "If you give someone a millimeter, and they will take a kilometer." For some examples:

• Israel
“We want only a few Jews to move to Palestine!”
During the creation of Israel, some Jews pushed the British government into allowing a small number of Jews to move to Palestine. The Jews promised that there would be no trouble because there would be only a few Jews living among the Palestinians, and everybody would live in peace.

After those Jews had moved to Palestine, the Jews pushed the British government into allowing a few more Jews to move to Palestine. Once again the Jews promised that there would be no trouble because only a few Jews would move to Palestine. After those Jews had moved to Palestine, the Jews pushed the British government into allowing some more Jews to move to Palestine. This cycle repeated over and over. (I have more details of this here.)

If the British had had the sense to say "No" to those Jews, we would not have an Israel today.

• Taxes
Government officials frequently use the give-an-inch trick to increase taxes. They promise to increase only one tax by a small amount, but when they increase one tax by a small amount, and then another tax by a small amount, and so on, after a century they have raised taxes to a significant amount.

The government also fools people by claiming they need to create just one additional, "special" tax. After a century, they have thousands of additional taxes.

For example, this report says Texas had 1,158 "special purpose districts" in 1992 to raise tax money, and by 2013, they had 1,740. In addition to having more of the "special taxes", the report says that the tax rates have been increasing.

Unfortunately, the voters never tell the government officials that they already collect enough taxes, or that it is time for them to start reducing the taxes and making the government more efficient. Many Texans boast that their guns are protecting them from crime, but their guns are not protecting them from corrupt and selfish government officials who slowly increase taxes.

• Sex
Young girls often complain that their boyfriends use this technique to push them into sex. The boys start with something insignificant, such as putting their arm around her shoulder, but soon they are pushing her with such deceptive promises as, "I'll only put the head in", and "I promise I'll pull out in time".

There are T-shirts that make fun of this trick, but this is not an amusing aspect of human behavior.

• The Iraq war
After the 9/11 attack occurred, President Bush and other people advocated a war with Iraq, and they promised that the war would be quick and simple. They promised to send only a few soldiers, and that the war would last only a few weeks or months, and that the world would appreciate our efforts.

However, the US military never found any terrorists or weapons, and "the "war on terror" eventually expanded to other nations, and it is still going on today, almost 14 years later. There is no sign that the war will end, or that anybody in our government wants to stop it.

Actually, some government officials and candidates want to expand the war. Ted Cruz, for example, wants to "carpet bomb them [the ISIS] into oblivion".

That is the type of policy I would expect from Beavis and Butthead. Where do we drop the bombs? Which nations? Which cities? How many bombs? If the bombing doesn't stop the terrorism, do we expand the bombings to other nations?

Ted Cruz is making the same type of promises that President Bush made after the 9/11 attack. Will the American people and military be fooled by this trick again? Will they start yet another endless war?

Both Democrat and Republican candidates propose a foreign policy that I would expect from Beavis and Butthead.

Does Cruz really believe that dropping more bombs on the Muslim nations will stop terrorism? Is he really so naive that he has never seen the evidence that Israel is responsible for most Muslim terrorism?

Or is he merely competing with the other candidates to titillate Republicans with violent, "get tough" proposals?

Or is he secretly working with Israel and advocating bombings in order to create more refugees and more hatred of America?

It is important to note that Cruz and Trump are not alone in advocating bombings. Many other candidates and government officials, including Democrats, have proposed violence of some sort. You might find it interesting to glance at this document that a CFR member is maintaining to keep track of the violent proposals of the 2016 presidential candidates. (The CFR appears to be just another group of wealthy Jews who beg for donations and try to manipulate us, but his document seems accurate. Even the most dishonest criminal is honest most of the time.)

I have suggested that the military go after the Jews and corrupt leaders, so why is it okay for me to advocate military action but not Ted Cruz or other people? The subtle but important difference between us is that Cruz, Trump, and the others want to trick the military into attacking phantom terrorists that nobody can identify. By comparison, I want the military to do their own investigations into who is our enemy, and to deal with those people while causing the least amount of collateral damage.

Don't be tolerant of abuse!

Both men and women use the "give an inch" technique to manipulate other people, and we ought to consider it disgusting and unacceptable. We should not allow government officials and other people to use this trick over and over. We should also face the fact that the reason we use this trick is because we are selfish monkeys who will lie, deceive, and manipulate to get what we want. We are not a wonderful creation of a loving god.

Nothing is going to improve in our world as long as we allow abusive people in leadership positions. Reprimanding or punishing them is not the solution, either. We need to replace them with people who show better characteristics. We should be appalled by abusive people, not consider their deceptive remarks to be amusing subjects for T-shirts. In 2006, some Israelis held an anti-Semitic cartoon contest. If Jews were wearing T-shirts with those cartoons, such as the one below, would you laugh at them?

Would the Germans giggle at Jews who were wearing T-shirts that had the cartoon below?

Why are we so easily manipulated?

Probably everybody has used the "give an inch" technique to get what they want, and all of us have been victims of it more than once. Because it is so common, all of us should be aware of it, and that should make it difficult for somebody to be successful with it. However, people are regularly manipulated by this trick. How can we become victims of a trick that is in such widespread use? Here are four reasons for this paradox:

1) Most people resist thinking about the past and future

Animals are easily fooled by the give-an-inch trick. For example, imagine that a dog has a bowl of food in the form of pellets. If you were to grab one of the pellets, the dog would become upset that you are touching his food, but he would notice that he still has his bowl of food, so he would quickly relax and resume eating. If you were to then grab another pellet, this cycle would repeat, and you could do this over and over without the dog realizing that you are taking a lot of his food.

The reason it is easy to take advantage of an animal with this trick is because animals do not think about the past or try to predict the future. They respond only to emotional stimulation. When you take a piece of food from a dog, he will be upset only as long as his emotions are stimulated, and those emotions remain stimulated only as long as you are taking the food. Therefore, if you grab the food quickly, he will be upset only for a few moments, and then he forgets about the incident. Animals behave like a person with an extreme case of Alzheimer's.

It doesn't make any sense for animals to care about abuse because they don't have the intelligence to do anything about it. The animals that were the most successful in life were those that quickly recovered from problems and returned to their important activities; namely, feeding themselves, fighting for status, and reproducing.

If an animal is abused by another animal, it will quickly forget about the incident and resume looking for food. If an animal is caught in a trap and has to chew its leg off, it will quickly recover emotionally and resume its normal life. Animals do not hold grudges, seek revenge, or analyze their problems.

Humans have enough intelligence to realize that bringing a "small number" of refugees into the nation each year will add up to a large number of people after many years, and that increasing taxes by a "small amount" will create a significant tax burden after many years. Unfortunately, most people do not want to analyze history and try to guess at what our future will be if we stay on the same course.

Most people have a very simplistic view of the future; namely, just a few vague and pleasant fantasies about their own life, such as how they will win the lottery, get married, or win an award. We prefer to focus our attention on ourselves, not on society.

When somebody abuses us, we become angry at them, but if the abuse is brief and mild, our anger will also be brief and mild. Since most people follow their emotions rather than think about what to do, as soon as our anger subsides, most people want to forget about the abuse and resume their normal life. They don't want to deal with the abuse. The person can then abuse us again, and then again.

By abusing us a little bit at a time, we never get angry enough, or remain angry long enough, to have the motivation to do something about the problem. Small amounts of abuse will bother us only if we analyze the past and notice the pattern of how we are being abused bit by bit.

When the government wants more of our money, they will encounter the least resistance when they create a lot of small tax increases that are spread over a few years rather than one large tax increase. To further reduce anger, the officials can make it appear as if they are doing us a favor by raising taxes, such as by claiming that the tax money is going to fund some useful service. For example, an official might describe a tax as a "special purpose district to fund the maintenance of the local elementary schools" rather than be honest and describe it as "an additional tax of 0.03% to increase the salaries of some government officials."

Not many people will be annoyed by a "special purpose district" that claims to be doing something useful for us because most people are not interested in analyzing what the government is doing. Therefore, they will not figure out that they are being cheated.

Another reason the government can easily cheat people is because most people don't seem to realize that when we give money to the government, the money is not going to schools or the police. It is essentially going into one government bank account, and then a small number of government officials secretly divide that money up in whatever manner they please.

The government officials can give large amounts to themselves and their friends, but give a small amount to the police and the schools. The police and school officials can then complain that they don't have enough tax money to fund their operations. The government can then claim that they need to raise taxes by just a little bit more in order to maintain the police department and public school system.

Most people will be happy to pay "just a little bit more" when they have been fooled into thinking that they are helping the schools and the police. However, the government officials will once again divide the money up in an unequal and selfish manner. They may give $50 million to Church World Service to help them bring in refugees, but they may not provide enough money for the fire department or the people maintaining the public water system. The government officials will then be able to complain that there is not enough tax money for the fire department or public water system, and so they need to raise taxes by just a little bit more in order to provide fire protection and water. This trick can be used over and over because most people have no interest in looking at the past or analyzing what the government is doing.

“Chicago will become unlivable if we don't pay more taxes!”
During 2015, Chicago's mayor Rahm Emanuel decided to use scare tactics to justify a big increase in taxes. Emanuel frightened many people with such remarks as "Our city would become unlivable".

Emanuel also lied to the people by telling them: "You're down to two choices: All these cuts in police, fire and basic neighborhood services — that's a set of choices and I'm against those cuts — or a property tax."

In reality, every government has lots of options for dealing with its financial situation. However, Emanuel was not interested in giving people an honest analysis of the situation or their options. He wanted to manipulate them. He was lying to the people in Chicago, just like the people who try to frighten us about global warming by telling us that we have only two choices; namely, we either allow carbon taxes, or the Earth will become unlivable.

Emanuel also tried to convince people that they would be considered as heroes by the future generations if they raised taxes. For example, one of his remarks was:
"With this budget, we can be remembered for stepping up to the challenge rather than stepping aside. With this budget, we will be counted among the doers rather than among those who dithered. With this budget, when we look back at our public service, our individual names will be in the history book rather than the guest book."

Emanuel's speeches to justify the tax increase ought to be used by schools as an example of how people can be manipulated. Students should be told to analyze his speech and identify as many lies and attempts to manipulate as they can find. The students should then discuss their analyses and learn from one another.

2) Our emotions are not stimulated by concepts

A person in Chicago would have become furious if Rahm Emanuel had reached into his pocket and took some of his money, but not many people became furious when Emanuel took their money by what we could describe as a form of racketeering, extortion, a confidence trick, or coercion.

The reason people do not become angry when government officials, journalists, or scientists lie to us is because our emotions are not stimulated by intangible concepts. For example, a "special-purpose district tax" is not an object that can poke our skin and cause pain. It is just a sequence of words that our mind decodes into an intangible concept.

Our emotions are stimulated by the signals that come from our senses, such as when the olfactory receptors in our nose react to the scent of a flower or a rotten piece of meat; when the nerves in our skin are triggered by contact with an object or by the heat of a fire; and when our eyes react to the reflected light of a baby or a dead body.

None of our emotions are triggered by concepts, such as taxes, marriage, school, crime, religion, global warming, or corruption. The only way a person will become upset with lies, corruption, and abuse is if he analyzes the issue. When we analyze an issue, we stimulate our emotions.

For example, when you look through photographs of your life, you may encounter one that causes you to think about an event that happened years earlier. If you enjoyed that event, then thinking about it will stimulate pleasant feelings, and you will enjoy looking at the photograph and talking about the event with your family and friends.

Although some photographs will stimulate your emotions directly, such as when women look at photographs of babies, and when men look at photographs of pretty women, when we think about a photograph, we can stimulate our emotions more intensely, and for longer periods of time.

Animals do not have the ability to think about issues, so they react only to the information coming from their senses. Our ability to think about issues provides us with a tremendous advantage over animals, but we can - and do! - use this talent for idiotic and destructive purposes.

For example, some people enjoy looking at photos and artwork that evoke unpleasant feelings. Why would anybody want to stimulate unpleasant feelings? I think it is because they are unhappy, and they have experienced the most pleasure when they feel sorry for themselves, or when other people feel sorry for them. We have a tendency to do whatever brings us the most pleasure, and so people who get the most pleasure from being miserable will want to make themselves miserable.

If you have trouble believing that somebody would make himself miserable in order to bring himself some pleasure, consider the people who have been accused of making themselves sick because they enjoy the attention they get.

Some people get pleasure by making other people miserable. For example, some mothers have been caught making their children sick because they enjoy the attention they receive when they have a sick child. These mothers may also enjoy making their child sick because a sick child will spend more time at home with his mother compared to a healthy child who spends more time with other children.

Here is an abstract of a report that describes a children's hospital in Atlanta that put hidden video cameras in 41 rooms. They caught 23 of the 41 mothers deliberately hurting their children, or lying to the doctors about their children's condition. A news article about it is here.

Incidentally, many people want to prevent hospitals from putting video cameras in rooms. They believe patients should have "privacy", but there are lots of reports of doctors, hospital staff, friends, and family members hurting and raping children and unconscious patients. Do you think the privacy of patients is more important than their safety? Who really benefits from the privacy?

The people who have been caught making themselves sick, or making their child sick, were not doing this for financial benefits or to avoid work. They were doing it simply to bring some pleasure into their miserable lives.

We inadvertently torment ourselves

Everybody seems to accidentally make themselves miserable once in a while. This happens when we analyze a situation and come to the conclusion that we are being tormented, abused, unappreciated, or neglected. Those thoughts can trigger our emotions, causing us to feel miserable, thereby reinforcing our assumption that we are suffering.

An example are the children who make themselves miserable when they cannot have a toy that they want. They make the mistake of assuming that they are being tormented by their parents, and those thoughts trigger unpleasant emotions.

When a child sees toys on television, he will think about the toys. He will create images in his mind of himself playing with the toys. If some of those mental images stimulate pleasurable emotions, he will want that particular toy. He will fantasize about how wonderful life will be when he plays with that toy.

The child will also imagine how other children will react to his toy. If he imagines children admiring his toy, he will titillate himself with fantasies of showing the toy to the other children, and becoming the center of attention. It is possible that he will want the toy only to show it to other children, rather than to play with it. Or, if he imagines other children ridiculing the toy, he might convince himself that he doesn't want the toy, even if he really does want it.

Adults go through the same process when we select products. We imagine ourselves using the product in order to determine if it will bring us some pleasure or benefit, and we also guess at other people's reactions to it. Just like children, adults frequently purchase items that they don't have much of an interest in simply because they titillated themselves with fantasies of how other people will be impressed by the items. This is most obvious with the items we describe as "status symbols". We purchase those items because we assume the items will cause other people to admire and respect us.

When an adult notices that people are looking at his status symbol, he is likely to assume that people are admiring it. Those thoughts will titillate pleasurable emotions, even if the people are thinking to themselves, "What a jerk! How much money did he waste on that stupid thing?"

After a child has titillated himself with fantasies of how wonderful his life will be with a toy, he will ask his parents to give it to him. If his parents refuse to let him have the toy, then the child may visualize his parents taking away his toy, thereby denying him a lot of pleasure. Those thoughts can trigger his anger emotion. He might also visualize himself going to school without the toy, and seeing other children with the toy, thereby stimulating the emotion that makes him feel like a misfit.

A child can inadvertently make himself miserable when he thinks about how his parents are refusing to get him a toy. However, he is not likely to realize that he is tormenting himself. Humans are arrogant, so we want to blame other people for our problems. A child is not likely to consider the possibility that he is the source of his own misery. He is more likely to assume that he is perfect, and that his misery is the result of somebody else. He will blame his parents for making him miserable.

We can keep ourselves miserable for decades

Our ability to stimulate our emotions can cause even more trouble for us when we do it repeatedly, thereby keeping us in a perpetual state of misery, envy, anger, or hatred. There is no harm in repeatedly stimulating pleasant memories, such as when we look at old photographs, but many people prefer to stimulate miserable emotions, so they recall unpleasant incidents during their past, and they do this year after year.

A child, for example, may remind himself over and over that his parents would not let him have a particular toy. He might keep himself angry for months or years. Some adults like to remind themselves of their dead child, thereby keeping themselves miserable for years.

Animals cannot keep themselves angry. If you take a piece of meat away from a dog, he will be furious, but after a few minutes he will have completely forgotten about the incident.

Your thinking ability determines how easily abused you are

We are easily manipulated with the "give an inch" trick because we have a tendency to follow our emotions rather than think. We will not be aware of this type of abuse unless we put some effort into analyzing issues and noticing the pattern of abuse. People who spend their time entertaining themselves and ignoring the world will not notice that they are being abused.

Furthermore, because we have slightly different intellectual and emotional characteristics, when two people think about the same issue, it is possible that only one of them will come to the conclusion that he is being abused. For example, PayPal and credit card companies are taking a percentage of our financial transactions. Are they abusing us? Or are they behaving in a clever manner?

If you come to the conclusion that they are abusing us, you will trigger anger or disgust, but if you come to the conclusion that they are clever businessmen, you will admire their talent. It is your thoughts about the issue, not the issue, that stimulates your emotions and determines whether you approve or disapprove of it.

When the people in Chicago thought about the issue of raising taxes, some of them may have been attracted to Rahm Emanuel's fantasy that their names will be recorded in history books for saving Chicago from disaster. If so, their fantasies of being admired by future generations would have titillated pleasurable emotions in their mind, thereby causing them to be proud to give more money to the Chicago government.

All humans have the same emotional reaction to being poked by a rose thorn because we all have the same nerves in our skin, and those nerves trigger the same emotions in all of us. However, concepts do not trigger our emotions. Our reaction to a concept depends upon how we think about it. We have different reactions to concepts because we produce different thoughts about the issues. And the reason we produce different thoughts about the same issue is because we put different amounts of time into thinking and researching; we have different educations; and we have different intellectual abilities and emotional characteristics.

Our prehistoric ancestors didn't have to spend any time analyzing the issues of corruption, freedom, taxes, religion, or other intangible concepts, but people today need both the desire to do this, and the ability to make wise decisions.

For an example of how people can hurt themselves when they do a terrible job of thinking about issues, consider that almost all employees are occasionally criticized by their boss, and almost all are denied a promotion that they are hoping for. Employees think about these problems, but they come to different conclusions. Some employees create images in their mind of how wonderful they are, and that they are insulted and abused by a cruel boss. Those type of thoughts can stimulate anger or sadness.

When an employee makes himself angry or sad by thinking about how cruel his boss is, he will give himself an unpleasant attitude that annoys other people, and that can cause the other employees to avoid him, and possibly criticize him. When he thinks about how the other employees are treating him, he is likely to continue his fantasy that he is a wonderful person, and that he is working among people who are cruel, insulting, and unappreciative. Those thoughts can trigger his anger of the other employees. He will blame other people for ruining his life, but he is ruining it by stimulating his anger with his unrealistic thoughts.

Another area where we hurt ourselves by stimulating unpleasant emotions is the issue of privacy. We would benefit in many different ways if information about everybody's life was in a publicly accessible database. It would help us understand human health, for example, and how different regions of the world have different health problems. The database would also make crime much more difficult.

Unfortunately, animals have a fear of being watched. When people think about the issue of having information about themselves in a publicly accessible database, they visualize their friends, relatives, neighbors, and thousands of government employees looking at their medical records, school records, and job history. Those fantasies inadvertently stimulate their fear of being watched. They frighten themselves.

Of course, some people oppose putting their private information in a public database simply because they realize we would learn the truth about them, and they don't want us to know that. We should not design society for those people, however.

As society becomes more complex, we must think more often, and we must do a better job of thinking.

3) Manipulation is natural to us

The third reason we are so easily manipulated is because we are naturally manipulative. Animals have no desire to "earn" anything. They intimidate, fight, and manipulate each other to get food, water, and mates. They have no shame or guilt for stealing food, raping females, deceiving one another, or intimidating other animals.

Humans are just animals with some additional intelligence. We manipulate one another on a regular basis, and without feeling guilty or ashamed. Because we are naturally manipulative, we wsually do not make a conscious, intellectual decision to manipulate people. We do not sit at a table with a pencil and paper and use our intellect to design a plan to manipulate other people. When we manipulate people, we are simply following our emotional cravings to get what we want. Therefore, we are not always aware that we are doing it. And since this behavior is natural, we are not always shocked when somebody does it to us.

We will never be successful at improving our world until we can face the reality that we are selfish, arrogant animals. When we have a more accurate understanding of human behavior, we will be able to use that knowledge to design a government system, economic system, leisure activities, and other social technology that suppresses our detrimental qualities and encourages our beneficial characteristics.

I've given some suggestions in other documents, such as how we should provide everybody with virtually the same home and level of material wealth in order to prevent people from getting involved with senseless competitive battles for material wealth. We are naturally very competitive, and we abhor losing competitive battles, even the most idiotic and meaningless battles, such as a competition to acquire the largest house, or to drink the most beer in one minute. When we realize that we have this characteristic, we can design a society to provide us with competitions that are more sensible.

4) We prefer to ignore problems

Finally, the fourth reason that we are easily manipulated is because we do not want to think about problems. Animals react to problems, and very quickly; they do not put time and effort into analyzing the problem. For example, when a sheep sees a wolf sneaking up to him, his fear emotion will be stimulated. Fear has a higher priority than other emotions, so all of his other emotions are temporarily ignored, and the sheep reacts quickly by running away from the wolf. If the sheep escapes from the wolf, his fear emotion will begin to subside, and he will return to whatever he was doing, probably looking for food.

The manner in which a sheep reacts to a wolf might seem sensible, but to understand how idiotic it is, imagine yourself in the same situation. Imagine that you have decided to take a trip to Alaska. There have been wolves in Alaska that attacked humans, so imagine that you are taking a hike in the Alaskan mountains, and you notice a large wolf sneaking up to you. Your fear emotion will be stimulated. Just like the sheep, your emotions will want you to run away. Assuming that you get to an area where you no longer see the wolf, you would not relax, as the sheep would, because you have much more intelligence than a sheep. You would realize that the wolf may still be in the area, and he may be following you.

In addition to intelligence, you also have information in your memory about animal behavior. That information lets you know that wolves often hunt in packs. Therefore, even though you do not see the wolf, you would consider the possibility that there are other wolves in the area. You would not return to hiking in the forest. Rather, you would remain fearful.

It is important to understand the reason that you remain fearful. It would not be because your emotions are frightened by the wolves. Rather, it is because the intellectual area of your brain is thinking about the situation, and it is visualizing the possibility that there are wolves near you. It is your thoughts of the wolves - not the wolves - that keeps your fear emotion stimulated. To rephrase this, by thinking about the situation and visualizing wolves in your area, you stimulate your fear emotion; you frighten yourself. And you will keep that fear emotion stimulated until you are so far away from the area that you come to the conclusion that you are safe.

This issue is similar to what I mentioned in a previous document in which I pointed out that Jennifer Lawrence and other women were stimulating themselves into a state of hysteria as they imagined men looking at photos of their naked body.

When you frighten yourself with thoughts of wolves stalking you, you are doing what could be described as "mental masturbation", but you are not doing it for the purpose of pleasure. Rather, you stimulate yourself inadvertently as you try to figure out how to deal with the danger.

Because of your ability to think and stimulate yourself, it would be difficult for the wolf to fool you. For example, if the wolf were to stop moving and remain motionless, other animals would be fooled into thinking that the wolf has vanished. As soon as a sheep no longer sees or smells a wolf, his fear emotion begins to subside, and he returns to grazing, even though he may be in just as much danger.

However, a human is not so easily fooled. Even though you would not see or hear the wolf, your intellect would tell you that he may still be watching you. Furthermore, modern humans have the knowledge that wolves have excellent senses of smell, and so your intellect would tell you that the wolf might be able to smell you even though you cannot see, hear, or smell him. You might use that knowledge to walk or swim down a creek in the hope that the water will prevent the wolf from following your scent.

Since animals cannot think, they are easy to trick. For example, when a hunter is trying to a kill a duck, he might hide behind some type of camouflage near a lake, and when a duck gets near him, he shoots at it. All of the ducks will fly away or hide when they hear the noise of his gun, but when the hunter returns to his camouflage, the fear emotion of the ducks begins to subside, and they eventually return to what they were doing. The ducks do not have the intelligence to realize that the hunter is still in the same camouflaged area.

Our best option is to analyze problems

If most people were to see a wolf sneaking up to them, they would try to run away. If they had a gun, they might use it to frighten or kill the wolf. Regardless of what they do, the point I want to bring to your attention is after the event is over, most people resume their life as if nothing had happened. They will not make any attempt to analyze the situation or try to learn from it.

When we encounter a problem in life, including a wolf, our best option is to spend some time analyzing the situation and trying to learn something from it. In the case of wolves, some people who have studied wolves have come to the conclusion that it is best if we do not run away from a wolf who is close to us because we cannot run faster than a wolf. Our best option, according to them, is to try to intimidate the wolf by staring back at him and making threatening noises and gestures. A wolf might back down if we appear strong and frightening, but he will not back down if we run away like a helpless sheep.

A wolf has the strength to beat a human in a fight, so they should not be frightened by a human, but they don't understand this concept. Wolves do not think; they merely react to their emotional feelings. Therefore, if we can trigger their fear emotion, they will run away from us, even though it is illogical for them to run from a human.

I know this technique works with large, aggressive dogs because I've had to use it once, and wolves are just larger, more aggressive dogs. An exception to this rule are the pit bulls. People have been breeding them to fight, and so they don't have as much fear as a "natural" animal.

Teenage gangs and crime networks can manipulate large amounts of people by stimulating their emotion of fear. They frighten people with displays of weapons, angry facial expressions, and violent threats. The Jews also manipulate people by stimulating fear, but they do it in a more complex manner, such as by staging terrorist attacks and then fooling people into believing that suicidal Muslims are responsible. They tricked millions of Americans into visualizing caves in Afghanistan in which suicidal Muslims with laptop computers had arranged for the 9/11 attack. They fooled so many Americans into frightening themselves with those imaginary terrorists that we started a war that is still going on.

If people had better control over their emotions, especially fear, and if they would take the time to analyze problems rather than react emotionally and quickly like a stupid animal, they would not be so easily manipulated by gangs and Jews.

By analyzing traffic problems, we reduce them

Now consider how these concepts apply to the driving of an automobile. Drivers occasionally encounter other drivers or weather conditions that annoy or frighten us. These incidents stimulate our emotions of fear or anger. Most people react to the emotional stimulation by panicking, swearing, yelling insults at the other driver, or making angry facial expressions. Since the emotional stimulation is momentary, the feelings of anger and fear soon subside, and then we calm down.

A more appropriate reaction to traffic problems is to analyze them in order to figure out if we can learn something from them. We might discover that we can reduce the problems by changing our driving habits, or by redesigning certain sections of the roads, or by changing some of the signs along the road, or by changing speed limits in certain areas, or by cutting down some trees to increase visibility.

Unfortunately, we do not like to analyze problems. When our emotions are stimulated by a traffic problem, we want to react to those emotions, and quickly, and after the emotion has subsided, we want to return to what we were doing as if nothing had happened.

Since we have a natural resistance to thinking, a society needs to be designed to compensate for this characteristic. One technique is to create jobs that require people to analyze problems, and another technique is to set up competitions that encourage people to analyze problems.

For example, the American government created the Department of Transportation to analyze traffic problems. Although many government employees are incompetent and apathetic, some of the people in this department have put effort into analyzing traffic problems, and they have found ways to improve the American road system.

Businesses are aware of this concept; they hire people to analyze products and experiment with improvements to them. Unfortunately, we are not yet applying this concept to most of our social technology. There are no people whose job is to find improvements to our government system, voting system, economic system, school system, holiday celebrations, sports, recreational events, social activities, language, or courtship activities.

It is important to note that hiring somebody to analyze and improve our technology will be of value only if the person has the talent and desire to do such a job. America already has thousands of people in universities, think tanks, and government agencies who claim to be experts in economics, psychology, feminism, and other social issues, but they do little or nothing to help us understand our social problems and improve our world.

Furthermore, we do not give any of them job performance reviews, and we do not replace the worst performing people. Rather, we let them give each other Nobel prizes and other awards.

We have to be pressured to take care of society

In a previous document I suggested that we have a Quality Control department in the government. The reason I think we need this department is because I don't believe we can expect the citizens to put the necessary time and effort into reviewing our leaders in government, business, schools, courts, or sports. I think that the only way we can get useful job performance reviews is if we make this task a job. The job could be part-time, and it could also be temporary so that a person is not obligated to do it for years, but it has to be a job.

The American Constitution is based on the philosophy that the citizens will be active participants of society, and that they will set aside some of their leisure time to analyze political candidates and make wise decisions about voting. The free enterprise system is based on the philosophy that the citizens will also be active participants in the economic system, and that they will voluntarily spend some of their leisure time analyzing businesses and passing judgment on which of them should be driven to bankruptcy.

However, history shows us that the majority of people will not become an active participant in society. Most people prefer to spend their leisure time focusing on entertaining themselves. They do not want to spend it analyzing government officials, schools, or businesses.

We need to design our society for what we really are, not what we like to think we are. We are monkeys, and we do not want to deal with the complex problems of the modern world. We need a Quality Control department so that we people can be pushed into putting effort into giving job performance reviews to our leaders and passing judgment on which of them should be replaced. We are not going to put much effort into such tasks unless we are under pressure to do so.

As with animals, we respond to stimuli, so we work better under pressure. Even the people who have an interest in society will put more effort into their work when they are under pressure.

A Quality Control department creates the dilemma of who will give job performance reviews to the people in the Quality Control Department. Police departments have the same dilemma. Specifically, the large departments have an Internal Affairs department to review the performance of the policemen, but who watches the Internal Affairs employees?

Life is complicated, and we simply have to deal with it. Don't frighten yourself with thoughts of how complex life is. We cannot achieve perfection. All we can expect to do is improve what we have.

The members of an organization determine what it is

A Quality Control department is just an organization; just a group of people. As I have mentioned many times, the most important aspect of an orchestra, sports team, hospital, and other organizations is the people in the organization, not their internal hierarchy, job titles, or physical location on the planet.

Take a critical look at different cities and different organizations. For example, in Asia we find unbelievable levels of trash and litter in some cities. The photo below shows trash in China.

The Asians might have a lot of excuses for their litter and pollution, but don't believe any of them. The filthy areas of the world are filthy for a very simple reason; namely, the people in those areas are making them filthy. The litter in China, for example, is not the result of the Japanese, the French, or the Africans. It is the result of the Chinese people who toss trash wherever they please.

If we could create a colony on Mars, and if we took all of the people from China who are littering, and put only them into the Mars colony, then China would become cleaner than Japan, and the Martian colony would be so filthy that it looks like a garbage dump.

Or, if we took all of the people from China who spit on the sidewalks and put only them in the Mars colony, then the Chinese sidewalks would become clean and the people in the Mars colony would be constantly stepping in spit and snot.

Or, if we took all of the gang members in Los Angeles and put only them into the Mars colony, then Los Angeles would be completely free of gangs, and the Mars colony would have more problems with gang fights and graffiti than any area on the earth.

Don't feel sorry for "poor" nations

The leaders of primitive nations frequently whine that the wealthy nations should help them "fight poverty" or recover from the damage of a hurricane or earthquake, but we are fools to feel sorry for them. They are not suffering because of poverty. They are suffering as a result of their selfish, crude, animal behavior.

The poor nations of the world have more material wealth and educational materials than our ancestors, so they cannot claim that their problems are due to a lack of material wealth or education. Isaac Newton, Thomas Jefferson, and millions of other people who lived a few centuries ago, had less material wealth and education, but they fed themselves, kept their neighborhoods clean, and sometimes planted flowers in their yards.

If we look through human history, we will find that no matter what area of the world we look at, and no matter what year we look at, we will find that a small percentage of the population is neat, clean, and responsible, and another small percentage is abusive, sloppy, and irresponsible. The sloppy, miserable people tend to blame their problems on poverty or ignorance, but it is due to the lower quality of their brains and bodies. They are inferior humans.

Welfare recipients in America have a lot of time every day to do whatever they please, and they could spend some of that time cleaning their homes, educating themselves, planting flowers, picking up litter in their neighborhood, planting vegetables, and making furniture for themselves. A few centuries ago, people were doing those sort of activities. Unfortunately, the welfare recipients do not have a desire to spend their leisure time doing anything productive. They prefer to spend their time watching television, getting drunk, abusing drugs, playing with dogs, and playing video games.

Unfortunately, rather than stand up to the miserable, sloppy, irresponsible, and destructive people, we have a tendency to feel sorry for them. We also like to imagine that we are heroes when we give them money or food.

One of the reasons that India has such an extreme problem with homelessness is because their religion promotes the philosophy that people should share their food with whoever is hungry. This is allowing the homeless people to survive and reproduce, creating even more hungry, homeless people. One Hindu Temple is feeding an estimated 20,000 rats, but not because they are raising the rats for food. It is simply part of the philosophy of their stupid religion.

Some people might complain that I should not describe the Indian religion as "stupid", but if a business in your city were to waste its time and money feeding rats for no purpose, you would describe them as stupid. If a school in your city were to do such a thing, you would complain that the school officials are idiots, and that the dead rats and their waste products are causing the school to become a filthy, stinky, health hazard.

Pretending that the Indian religion is sensible is not going to help the Indians, and feeling sorry for them will not help them either. Their religion would have been acceptable during prehistoric times because they could not get carried away with their worshiping of animals, but today that religion is detrimental. They need to develop more appropriate attitudes for this modern world. If they refuse to modernize and continue to behave like their ancestors, then ignore their suffering.

Why are some nations more primitive than others? Why are some individual citizens having more trouble with life? It is because there are subtle differences between our brains. Each person's life is a reflection of his mind's abilities and desires, and every nation, business, and sports team is a reflection of the people in that particular organization. If an organization does nothing to improve itself, it is because the people who dominate the organization do not have much of an ability and/or desire to analyze their problems and look for ways to improve their lives.

Nothing improves on its own. If we want better cities, robots, or government systems, we must put time and effort into analyzing these issues and experimenting with improvements. This requires that we find leaders who have the talent and desire to analyze and experiment, and it requires citizens who have enough concern for society that they will stand up to incompetent leaders rather than ignore them.

The reason I showed the photo of the litter in China and the rats in India is to help you realize that if we create some new cities, life in those cities would be more dependent upon the people that we invite into the cities than it would be on the government systems, economic systems, and school systems of the cities. The members of an organization are its most important asset.

If we were to create a new city and fill it with the people from India who believe in feeding homeless people and rats, then the city would eventually become even more overcrowded, filthy, miserable, and stinky than the worst parts of India, and the areas of India where we took these people from would become slightly less filthy.

If the Japanese were to create a new city and restrict it to people who can ignore their ancestors and explore their future, then the new city would be dramatically better than the rest of Japan. Instead of pressuring one another to follow their ancestors, the people in that city would be experimenting with life's options.

Incidentally, the Japanese have a variety of miso pastes, and many people are using them in sauces for vegetables, meats, and salads, but the extremely high salt content limits its uses. If it were not so salty, it could be used on sandwiches, crackers, and pizzas.

Furthermore, if there was some way of making miso with the same type of organisms that create Parmesan, cheddar, or blue cheese, then we would have an alternative to cheese that doesn't have the slimy texture of cheese.

The Japanese have a lot of talent, but they are not reaching their full potential because of the pressure they put on one another to follow their ancestors like stupid sheep.

The world's problems are not the result of poverty, ignorance, or the devil. All of our problems are the result of people's decisions to behave in certain ways. Some of the people who cause trouble for us are "nice" people with "good intentions", but we have to judge people according to their effect on society.

For example, many of the people who call themselves "conservatives" are nice, honest, friendly, and dependable, but they are dirt in every nation's transmission because they resist critical analyses and improvements to culture. The conservatives in India become angry if we tell them to stop feeding rats and worshiping cows; the conservatives in China become angry if we tell them that their language is a burden and they should switch to an alphabetic language; and the conservatives in America become angry if we tell them that guns cannot stop crime, or that we should switch to the metric system.

Some liberals are even more destructive than the conservatives because instead of solving problems they would rather feel sorry for criminals, homeless people, refugees, "Underdogs", and illegal immigrants.

Analyze problems to improve life, not to jerk off

Humans have the ability to analyze issues and change the course of our future, but a lot of people think about problems only to stimulate miserable emotions and prolong their state of anger or sadness. For example, when some people experience a traffic problem, they will think about the incident during the following days. They might talk about it with their friends, also, or write about it on the Internet.

However, they are not analyzing the issue to improve life, as would an employee of the Department of Transportation. Rather, they are reminding themselves of the problem over and over in order to stimulate their anger or to bring pity to themselves. They gain nothing from their mental masturbation, and society gains nothing. They are wasting their talent on a worthless activity.

In 1992, the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) conducted an investigation of the price difference that men and women pay for the same product, and they came to the conclusion that businesses were charging women slightly more than they charged men for the same items. Some states passed laws to stop this price discrimination.

Not surprisingly, the laws did not stop businesses from setting prices higher for women. During 2015, the DCA issued 129 violations to businesses who were violating the New York City gender pricing law.

In December 2015 the DCA conducted another study of some different products and released this report that says most of the products that are designed for women have a higher sales price than the virtually identical products designed for men.

We are not going to solve these problems by creating more laws. Our current method of stopping crime, corruption, incompetence, and abuse is not working. We need to experiment with a different policy.

We need to analyze problems, not merely react to them. How can we solve a problem unless we know what is causing it? We should put some effort into understanding why there are price differences in products for men and women. If the price differences were due to a shortage of laws, then we could solve the problem by creating more laws. However, none of our problems are the result of a shortage of laws.

I think the reason women's products are more expensive is simply because of the difference in the personalities of men and women. It is the same reason that Jennifer Lawrence discovered that male actors were making more money than she was. Specifically, women are less aggressive than men.

In a free enterprise system, businesses push prices as high as possible, and wages as low as possible. If a group of consumers does not show much concern about the price of a product, such as wealthy people, or if the consumers are very easily abused, such as women, children, and the elderly, then businesses will take advantage of the situation by pushing prices higher than they would for a group of consumers who are more concerned about the price.

The reason certain women's products are more expensive than men's products is because the women are not showing as much of a concern about the price of those products, and the businesses are taking advantage of their apathy.

However, it is interesting to note that not all of the women's products were more expensive. Some of them were less expensive. For example, shampoo and shaving cream is identical for both men and women, but women would pay 48% more for shampoo and men were paying about 4% more for shaving cream.

This brings up the interesting issue of why men and women have slightly different concerns over the prices of products. Why do women put pressure on businesses to lower the price of shaving cream but not shampoo? Why do men want low prices for almost everything except shaving cream? Here are two possible reasons:

1) The more attracted we are to a product, the higher the price can be

When we select products that bring us pleasure in some manner, we will put ourselves into a good mood by titillating ourselves with fantasies of how the product will improve our lives. For example, when people are purchasing tickets to a Lady Gaga concert, they may titillate themselves with fantasies of seeing Lady Gaga. They will put themselves into a good mood, and as a result, the high price of the ticket will not bother them nearly as much as if they were purchasing something that did not put them into a good mood, such as an automobile battery.

Women like to look pretty, so when they are trying to decide which shampoo to purchase, they may titillate themselves with fantasies of how pretty their hair will look, and by putting themselves into a good mood, they will not be as bothered by the high prices as when they purchase items they don't have much interest in.

Most women may not enjoy shaving, in which case they would regard shaving as a chore rather than as fun. They would be in their normal mood when selecting shaving creams rather than in an excited mood, and that would cause them to be more aware of, and irritated by, high prices. Their attitude when buying shaving cream may be to get the job done at the lowest expense.

Another reason that we will be more willing to pay higher prices for items that we enjoy is that we have a tendency to trust businesses and assume that the higher priced items are better. When we are purchasing a product that we will enjoy or consider important, we want it to be good quality. This gives us a bias towards the higher priced items. By comparison, when we are purchasing something we don't care much for, such as cleaning supplies, we are more concerned with getting the job done for the least amount of money.

2) Many women do not care about prices

A lot of women have never had to earn money. When they were children, they were pampered by their parents, and then they married a man who pampers them with money. From my own casual observations of women, those who have never had to earn a living show less concern about prices compared to the women who have had to support themselves. Those pampered women are exploited by businesses.

What should we do about price discrimination?

Many states in America have created laws to stop price discrimination. It is possible that the laws have reduced the problem, but they have not stopped it. Laws cannot stop humans from behaving in a selfish manner. It is especially absurd to expect laws to make businessmen behave properly when the free enterprise system is putting pressure on them to make profit with no regard for how they make it.

The free enterprise system creates a serious conflict of interest. Our laws are trying to make people behave in a manner that is best for society, but the free enterprise system puts pressure on us to do what is best for profit, even if it is harmful to our own personal lives or to society.

A good example of this conflict of interest is tetraethyl lead and other dangerous chemicals that many people have pushed onto society because of the profit potential, despite the health hazards to themselves, their family members, and other people.

The price discrimination between men and women's products is due to:
1) The free enterprise system is putting pressure on businesses to make profit with no regard to the consequences.
2) Men and women interact with businesses in a slightly different manner due to our different personalities.

We cannot create laws that will fix those two problems. I think the only sensible solution is to replace the free enterprise system with an economic system that puts businesses into competition to bring improvements to society rather than compete for profit, but let's assume that people don't like my idea and want to keep the free enterprise system. What should we do to make prices more fair for women?

Since we cannot control a free enterprise system, there is no way we can force businesses to do what is best for society. The only solution is to educate women about the issue of how many of their products are overpriced, and tell them to pay more attention to prices, thereby putting pressure on the businesses to treat them better. If the women don't have the desire or ability to fight with the businessmen, then nothing is going to change.

All problems should be analyzed

When we analyze problems we have a chance of improving our lives. This concept applies to everything, including sports. For example, during 2015 Tom Brady was accused of using footballs with a slightly lower air pressure than the regulations required. It may seem impossible to learn something from such an incident, but we can learn something from everything.

Although nobody could prove that Brady had reduced the air pressure, let's assume he did. We should then ask ourselves, why did he do this? I can answer that question without asking Brady. There was a time in high school that we had access to the footballs that the football team played with, which were more similar to the footballs that Tom Brady uses. I considered those footballs to be uncomfortably hard. Catching those balls was like catching a rock.

If the people who dominated sports could analyze problems, they would discuss such issues as:
• We allow each team to make decisions about how to get the ball across the goal line, so why not also let them decide how much to inflate the ball? Why not let the inflation pressure be part of the team's strategy to win?
• Does the pleasure or value of a football game go up and down according to the inflation pressure of the ball?
• Why do we play football games? What is the purpose of the game? How does the inflation pressure of the football affect that purpose?
• What would happen to football games if we switched to foam balls, or balls that have stabilizer tails, as in the photo to the right? Would that improve the game for professional athletes? Would it improve the game for ordinary people?

When we analyze sports, including the cheating in sports, we might learn something that can help us make the sports more fun, less dangerous, less expensive, or more suitable for ordinary people. When we analyze economic issues, we might find ways to improve our economy. When we analyze holiday celebrations, we might find ways to make them more beneficial and entertaining.

It is important to note that when we devise improvements to our sports, economy, or government, we should not fool ourselves into believing that we are so smart that our improvements will be successful. In order to determine if our brilliant ideas are truly improvements, we must be willing to experiment with them.

Our attitude should be that experiments are one of the fun aspects of life. We should learn to enjoy making an occasional change to sports, holiday celebrations, and other activities, and observe what happens.

Furthermore, because the human mind has a resistance to change, we should be prepared to give ourselves a few weeks to become accustomed to the change before we decide whether it is an improvement.

Experimenting with culture will cause some people to become traumatized, and they will put up a resistance to the experiments rather than give them a fair test. Some people might even try to sabotage the experiments. A society is not going to be able to improve its culture unless a significant percentage of the population can control their fear of the unknown well enough to conduct the experiments.

What kind of personality does Donald Trump have?

When Trump is annoyed by somebody, he sometimes responds by insulting the person. For example, when Trump said that he saw thousands of Arabs were celebrating the 9/11 attack, the journalist who wrote the article that Trump said he was referring to responded that his article never made such claims. Trump became upset with the criticism, and he responded by making fun of the journalist's physical handicap.

Incidentally, the Arabs who were celebrating the 9/11 attack were Jews. On the Internet you will find them described as the "Dancing Israelis" or the "Dancing Arabs". If you're not familiar with this, I have some information here.

Why does Trump insult people who annoy him? His behavior might be unusual for people in leadership positions, but it is "typical" animal and human behavior. Earlier I mentioned that when we are driving an automobile and are irritated or frightened by something, our emotions are triggered, and we tend to react immediately, such as by blurting out insults or making noises.

This behavior is most obvious with children because they have less self-control and do not think as much or as well as an adult. When a child's emotions are stimulated, regardless of whether it is fear, pleasure, pain, or hunger, they tend to react immediately, just like an animal. For example, when a child is irritated, he might blurt out insults, cry, make angry noises, shriek, or fight. When a pleasurable emotion is stimulated, the child will make different types of noises and facial expressions.

Everybody occasionally has their emotions stimulated, but unlike an insect - which has no ability to control its behavior - we have an ability to override our emotions and think about what we should do and say. However, we differ in our ability to control our behavior, our desire to control ourselves, our ability to think, and our desire to think.

When a monkey is irritated by another monkey, he will either run away or he will fight. However, it should be noted that animals are inherently non-violent. Their preferred method of fighting is with facial expressions, body postures, noises, and displays of teeth. Their fights become potentially dangerous only if the non-violent techniques fail.

Humans behave just like monkeys. When a person is irritated by another person, his emotions will want him to either run away or fight. If we decide to fight, our preferred method is just like that of the animals; namely, facial expressions, body postures, and noises. Unlike a monkey, we don't have to make growling noises. We can put words together into sentences. This causes us to fight by creating insults that we think will intimidate the other person.

When Trump became irritated by Rosie O'Donnell and Carly Fiorina, his reaction was to fight with them with verbal insults. When Trump became irritated by that handicapped journalist, his reaction was to fight with him with both verbal insults and body postures.

There is an interview with Trump in which he describes himself as having been a "rebellious" child who loved to get into fights: "All types of fights. Any kind of fight, I loved it, including physical." His parents were concerned that his behavior was abnormal, and they decided to send him to the New York Military Academy in the hope that the military could fix his problem. He spent five years in the Academy, but the military is not capable of changing the design of our brain.

The military academies and boot camps are a type of "school", or a type of "training program". Whether a person gains something from a school depends upon his desires and characteristics. A school cannot help a person who doesn't want to be helped, and a school cannot fix a damaged brain. The children who are sent to military academies may learn something from it, but their personality will remain exactly the same.

The people who condemn Trump are behaving just like him

Every time Donald Trump blurts out some crude insult, millions of people are emotionally stimulated. If they approve of Donald Trump, they might blurt out pleasant remarks, or they may smile or laugh, but if they dislike Donald Trump, they will blurt out insults and make angry facial expressions.

Many of those people are also posting remarks in the "Comments" sections of news articles, videos, and blogs. They believe that they are influencing public opinion or impressing us with their brilliant remarks, but they are just adding more linguistic trash to the Internet.

Imagine if dogs had enough intelligence to use the Internet. In such a case, instead of typing comments on the Internet, they would stand in front of a video camera and make facial and body expressions, bark, growl, and show their teeth, and then upload that video. Imagine a bunch of dogs posting those type of videos in the "Comments" section.

That idiotic situation is happening all the time right now, except that the people are typing comments rather than posting videos of themselves barking. The people who insult Donald Trump for insulting other people are behaving exactly like Donald Trump. They are hypocrites.

The most appropriate reaction to a problem is to analyze it. We ruin morale and make ourselves miserable when we react by barking and growling at one another. We should analyze Donald Trump and his remarks. We should try to understand issues, not simply react like a stupid animal. We should ask such questions as, why is Trump behaving in this manner? Is he showing characteristics that will make him useful as a leader? Or will his characteristics make him inappropriate?

Trump's personality is beneficial in some situations

I suspect that Trump's personality was well suited to a leader of a prehistoric tribe. For example, his love of fighting would cause him to enjoy the struggle of defending his tribe from wolves and neighboring tribes. Don't underestimate the importance of a man who enjoys his job. When a man enjoys his job, he will do it without anybody telling him to do it, and without anybody motivating him. He will take the initiative to do it.

Imagine yourself in a prehistoric tribe, and a pack of wolves is sneaking up to you and trying to grab some of your children. The men who would do the best job of defending the tribe would be those who truly enjoyed the opportunity to fight the wolves. They would not be frightened of the wolves. Rather, they would regard the wolves as an opportunity to have another exciting battle. They would immediately stop what they were doing and attack the wolves with rocks, sticks, and loud noises. Nobody would have to tell them to defend the tribe; nobody would have to motivate them.

People often complain that men are violent, but men are violent because life during prehistoric times was a dangerous battle, and the animals and people that were successful were those who enjoyed defending themselves. Men are violent because that was the only way people could survive the battle for life.

An animal's first preference is to avoid dangerous confrontations, but when they cannot avoid it, they will fight with endless courage. Even a small mouse will fight to defend itself against a cat no matter how much it loses the battle. It never gives up or surrenders. It never loses hope or confidence.

Male and female animals are identical in regards to their ability and desire to defend themselves, but as monkeys developed into humans, the females lost some of their love of fighting.

All men enjoy fighting, but we differ in how much we enjoy it. At one extreme are the men who enjoy it so much that they arrange for recreational fights during their leisure time, such as the men who join fight clubs. Many of our sports are essentially two groups of animals that are fighting each other. Have you seen the sport of medieval fighting? It is a new sport, and is growing in popularity.

Another characteristic of Donald Trump that people insult on a regular basis is his arrogance. I would say that this is another characteristic that was beneficial during prehistoric times. A person who is arrogant is a person who has a lot of confidence in his abilities; a person who believes that he will be successful in what he does.

In this modern world, arrogance can be annoying, but in prehistoric times, it was a valuable trait. Arrogant men had the confidence to deal with life's problems, such as finding food, chasing away wolves, and defending their tribe from other tribes.

By comparison, the men who were less arrogant did not have as much confidence in their abilities. When they had to face a pack of wolves, they would have more doubts about winning the battle, and they might decide to run away, thereby allowing the wolves to grab some of their children. When they had to search for food, they would have more doubts about finding food, and their worrying about failure could interfere with their success. A man with very little confidence in himself might even become depressed during his search for food, and he might sit down on the ground and cry.

Although modern humans do not need the same personality traits as our prehistoric ancestors, men who are arrogant and like to fight are still useful for certain jobs. For example, I suspect that these men would be useful in the type of Quality Control department that I have suggested for a government.

The Quality Control department would have to review the performance of people who are in influential positions, such as government officials, journalists, lawyers, teachers, and business leaders. They would also have to regularly pass judgment on which leaders are doing the worst job and should be replaced. This puts the Quality Control managers into an unpleasant conflict with people in leadership positions.

Our leaders will not enjoy having their performance analyzed, and they will not enjoy being told that they need to be replaced. The Quality Control managers must be able to handle this emotional conflict. Who among us will do the best job of handling this conflict? I suspect that it is the people who enjoy conflicts; the type of men who, when faced with a pack of wolves, will throw rocks at them rather than run away.

The Quality Control managers cannot be the type of people who get on their hands and knees and bow before Queen Elizabeth or a Hollywood director. They need to be the type of people who can face Queen Elizabeth, analyze her job performance, and tell her, "You haven't contributed anything to society. You're fired."

From my casual observations of life, a problem that many businesses and other organizations suffer from is that they have some employees who ruin morale with their bad attitudes, or because some of the employees or managers cannot do their jobs very well, or because some of them spend a lot of time goofing off.

Ideally, the management would deal with the troublesome employees, such as by firing them, giving them more training, or switching them to a different job. However, the majority of people do not want to stand up to troublesome people. Most people are timid, passive sheep, not aggressive fighters. They do not want to get into confrontations with other people, and they do not want to fire other people. People with Trump's personality can be useful to an organization because they are capable of standing up to the people who are not doing their jobs well.

However, the people in the Quality Control department need more than an ability to handle conflicts. They also need a certain level of honesty. They will be worthless if they are members of crime networks, take bribes, or can be blackmailed.

One of the reasons that our legal system and police departments are so ineffective at stopping corruption and crime is because so many of our sheriffs, lawyers, and judges are criminals and blackmailed puppets.

I don't know if Donald Trump has the honesty we need for a Quality Control manager, or if he would want such a job, or if he is any good at analyzing leaders, but I suspect that his personality would be well suited to that department.

Another reason that Donald Trump might not be any good in a leadership position is that he may not be able to control his arrogance enough to look critically at himself and his opinions. In one of his interviews he made the remark, “I don’t like to analyze myself because I might not like what I see.

Our leaders need to be able to look critically at themselves and their opinions. Actually, everybody benefits by being able to look critically at themselves.

There is a reason all managers are similar

Evolution occurs to more than just DNA. It occurs with organizations, also, such as businesses, militaries, and schools. The reason is that organizations compete with one another, just as living creatures compete. This competition causes some businesses and militaries to be defeated. The competition also causes people to eventually notice that certain attitudes are detrimental, and others are beneficial.

For example, when an employee is promoted to management, he is often advised to break his friendships with his subordinates and become their boss rather than their friend. A business will continue to function if the managers are friends with the employees, but many managers have noticed that the organization will function more efficiently when the management and employees do not have close friendships.

The reason for this seems to be because humans and many other animals have an emotional desire to form a hierarchy, and to follow the people who are higher up in the hierarchy. We are very concerned and aware of where a person is in the hierarchy.

Our emotions were not designed for democracies or Marxism. We prefer a hierarchy, and each of us wants to be at the top of the hierarchy. As a result of these cravings, whenever people get together to form a group, we tend to form a hierarchy.

We have an emotional craving to follow somebody who is above us in the hierarchy, but we want people who are below us to be submissive to us. If our boss is our friend, our emotions will regard him as our equal, and that can cause us to want to get involved with the decisions of what to do. That can cause conflicts, and the larger the team is, the more conflicts there will be.

From my personal observations of life, the successful managers are not necessarily the most intelligent or talented employees. Rather, the characteristic that successful managers seem to share is that they are good at taking the role of an authority.

The managers who want to be friends with their employees have noticeably more trouble controlling their employees and getting rid of the incompetent and destructive employees. The "friendly" managers have a tendency to ignore the badly behaved employees, or to give them a second chance, and then a third chance. The organization will function, but it functions more efficiently with a manager who is an authority.

This concept also applies to school teachers, especially the teachers who have to deal with badly behaved students. The teachers who want to be friends with the students will have more trouble controlling their students compared to the teachers who are authorities. The students will also put more effort into learning with an authority.

We do not learn much from our friends

Humans respond to "authorities", not "friends". You should see evidence of this concept in your personal friendships. Assuming that you have a friend, consider how much time you spend together, and then ask yourself, "What have I learned from my friend? And what have I taught him?"

You have spent hundreds of hours with your friend, and if you had spent that much time with a teacher, you would have learned quite a bit of information. If you had spent that much time with a military drill sergeant or athletic coach, you would have also learned something and had a lot of exercise. But what do you learn from your friend? And what do you teach your friend?

You may have discussed hundreds of different issues with your friends, such as religion, the war in Iraq, the 9/11 attack, global warming, or my documents. However, when you discuss these issues with your friend, both of you are nice to each other. You do not put pressure on one another, as a teacher or boss would put pressure on you. You do not push one another into thinking seriously. You would never say to your friend, "I asked you a specific question about global warming, and you gave me a vague answer. You are not a child any longer. Put some effort into this. Don't just make a vague remark. Now, answer my question, and do a better job this time."

If you had been discussing issues with a teacher rather than your friend, you would have been pressured to put some effort into analyzing the issues, researching them, and developing intelligent opinions. You would have gained something in the process. You would have developed opinions that are better than what you have right now.

Your friend is not helping you to improve your opinions, and you are not helping him to improve his. When you are with your friend, both of you are relaxed, and both of you are entertaining yourselves. You are not putting any significant pressure on each other to improve your opinions, look critically at yourself, develop your skills, or discover your weaknesses and talents.

We need pressure

Humans and animals respond to stimuli. We evolved for an environment in which we are constantly under pressure to find food and protect ourselves from danger. In our modern world, however, nature is no longer putting pressure on us. Today we must provide the stimulation. We should design our society so that we inspire and encourage one another to learn, think, get some exercise, and do something of value with our life.

When a person doesn't have any pressure on him to do anything, such as a person who inherits lots of money, he becomes bored and restless, and then he starts looking for something to do. However, without any pressure, we will choose an activity that our emotions consider to be "fun", and we will do that activity at a pace and with the effort that our emotions enjoy. We will imagine that we are putting a lot of effort into the task, but compared to people who do the same task for their job, we are doing the job at a relaxed pace.

There are some people who sometimes put a lot of effort into their leisure activities, but from my observations of people, we tend to be more relaxed and spend more time chatting with other people than we would if we were doing the same task at our job. A professional house painter, for example, might paint an entire room within a couple of hours whereas a person who paints a room during his leisure time might take days to complete the same job.

Our minds were designed to be under pressure. The pressure causes us to stay focused on our task and work more quickly and efficiently. Our emotions dislike the pressure, but the reason is to push us into solving the problem. People are misinterpreting their emotional feelings when they assume that the pressure is "bad", and that life will become better when we are so wealthy that we don't have to do anything except entertain ourselves.

Each of us will benefit by understanding our emotions

Each of us will make better decisions about our personal life when we have a better understanding of our emotions. Our hunger emotion is a good example. Imagine if we were to take a random group of people on a hike in a forest, but we did not bring any food with us. After a couple hours, most people's hunger emotion would start to turn on. The people with the least self-control would eventually start whining that they are suffering from hunger. They would not be able to ignore those emotions; rather, they would focus on those unpleasant feelings, and they would convince themselves that they are miserable. They would ruin morale.

If a person had a better understanding of his emotions, he would realize that his hunger emotion is analogous to a warning light that is going on inside his mind to inform him that he will eventually need some food. He will realize that he does not need to stop what he is doing and find food immediately because his body is capable of going many days without food. Instead of making himself miserable, he will ignore the feelings of hunger and focus on enjoying the hike and the people that he is with. He might help himself ignore the hunger by reminding himself that when he gets home, the meal will taste better because he will be hungrier than usual.

If you can understand how your hunger emotion works, and why, then you might choose to avoid snacks between meals in order to allow your hunger emotion to grow in intensity, thereby allowing you to get more enjoyment from your meals. Instead of whining about being hungry, you would enjoy the feelings because you would realize that the hungrier you are, the more tasty the meal will be.

By comparison, the people who believe they are suffering when they experience hunger are never going to get much enjoyment from their food because they will eat while they are only mildly hungry. Since food will not taste as good to them, they will not enjoy the foods with subtle tastes. They will prefer the modern, processed foods that have lots of sugar, fat, and flavors.

Furthermore, people who eat as soon as they feel hunger are likely to become overweight because our hunger emotion turns on before we actually need food. The reason our hunger emotion turns on "too soon" is because it is intended to push us into doing something; namely, look for food. We evolved for an environment in which food is difficult to acquire. Animals must start the process of finding food before they actually need the food.

In this modern world, food is available in excessive quantities, and so our hunger emotion should not become activated so early. Modern humans need to understand their hunger emotion and make better decisions about food. People today will cause trouble for themselves if they misinterpret their hunger emotion by assuming that they must eat as soon as they feel hunger.

Most people believe that happiness comes from experiencing pleasant emotions and avoiding unpleasant emotions, but that is not true. Our emotions are simply methods of pushing us into doing something, such as search for food, compete for status, or take care of children. We do not have to satisfy our emotions, and we are not suffering when we experience an unpleasant emotion.

When we experience a problem of some sort, an unpleasant emotion will be triggered, and we will feel irritated, angry, fearful, or sad. Don't misinterpret those emotional feelings into thinking that you are suffering. Your emotions are simply trying to stimulate you into doing something about the problem. Learn to react by analyzing the problem. You will ruin morale and keep yourself in a miserable mood when you focus on your "suffering". You are not "suffering" when you experience an unpleasant emotion; rather, you are "experiencing a feeling". You are suffering only if you want to convince yourself that you are suffering.

Apply this concept to other people, also. For example, when a child whines that he is suffering from hunger, or that he must have a particular toy, don't assume that he is truly suffering, and that you must do something to relieve his misery. Instead, analyze his situation and make a wise decision about what to do.

Parents will stimulate unpleasant emotions in their children when they refuse to give the children whatever candy, toys, or pets they are whining for, but the parents are not tormenting their children. Parents will also stimulate unpleasant emotions in their children when they tell them to clean their room or participate in household chores, but the parents are not hurting their children when they do that, either.

It is fairly easy to apply this concept to children because we have control over their lives, and their complaints are usually quite simple, but the situation is more complicated with adults and organizations. Many adults whine about how they are abused, insulted, neglected, or unappreciated by their boss, neighbors, spouse, other employees, or the government. Some adults also whine that they are suffering from poverty, sexism, racism, anti-Semitism, or discrimination.

We tend to feel sorry for people who whine, but we must force ourselves to analyze the situation and make an intelligent decision about whether the person really is suffering, or whether his suffering is self-inflicted. We are not responsible for somebody who makes himself miserable. We do not owe those people anything.

We will improve society when we understand our emotions

As we learn more about our emotions, each of us will be able to make better decisions about how to live our life. We will also do a better job of designing laws that are useful rather than ineffective, and we will do a better job of designing school systems, economic systems, and other social technology that fit the human mind.

For example, we are selfish and arrogant, and that causes us to become angry or sad when we are criticized. Since criticism is valuable, we should design schools to get children accustomed to being criticized and doing critical analyses. By the time a child is an adult, he should be able to give and receive critical reviews.

Imagine a teacher giving a group of students the assignment of writing a critical review of one of the students in the class. Then the teacher has all of the students read all of those critical reviews, and they discuss them to determine which of the critical remarks seems to be the most accurate and sensible.

The next week they do the same process but with a different student, and this goes on until all of the students have been put through this critical analysis.

Some of the students might whine that they felt insulted by the reviews, but once you understand what emotions are, you should be able to stand up to that student and tell him to stop making himself miserable and learn to deal with it. If a student becomes traumatized by criticism, it is because he is making himself miserable by repeatedly stimulating himself with unpleasant thoughts.

If schools were to put children through that type of program many times, some of them would become adults who understand the value of critical analyses and appreciate them, rather than whine about them. The children who reacted to those programs by whining or fighting would be removed so that they don't disrupt the other students.

Our schools are currently separating students according to their ability to memorize information and do math functions, but I think it would be helpful to also put them through programs that prepare them for modern society, and to separate them according to their ability to handle these programs.

For another example of how it will be useful to understand our emotions, no nation is restricting reproduction according to a person's genetic characteristics, and the reason is because most people believe that everybody should have the freedom to reproduce as often as they want, even if they are not interested in taking care of their children. Most people believe that restrictions on reproduction would cause suffering and emotional pain to the people who don't qualify to reproduce.

However, when we have a better understanding of our emotions, we will realize that we are not hurting a couple by restricting them to one child, or by not letting them have any children. If it were true that we must have children in order to enjoy life, then the people who are born infertile would be unable to enjoy life, and so would the people who choose not to have children.

A society that restricts reproduction will stimulate unpleasant emotions in a lot of people, and some of those people will react by whining, and others may have violent tantrums. However, there is nothing wrong with stimulating unpleasant emotions. We should not feel guilty simply because some people are upset with a particular law. We should design our laws according to what would make the most sense for society, not according to what will please the most people.

A society needs to create a lot of laws, and no matter what those laws are, all of us are likely to be occasionally annoyed by some of them. However, we are not hurting people or denying them the opportunity to enjoy life when we demand that everybody follow certain rules of behavior, or when we require that everybody contribute to society, or when we restrict reproduction.

Life is full of disappointments and pleasures. Each person needs to learn to deal with disappointments, and those who cannot should be considered as inferior humans.

Does Trump investigate anything?

Trump's remark about how thousands of Arabs were celebrating the 9/11 attack makes me wonder if he does any research on any issue. Millions of people around the world have known for years that Jews were celebrating the attack. It is only the billions of sheeple who don't know this. Is Trump really as naive as the sheeple? Yes, it is possible. His priority in life may be wealth and fame, not thinking, researching, experimenting, or exploring.

The journalist Michael D’Antonio says that Trump pays people to cut out articles about him from magazines and newspapers, and to print articles from the Internet. He says Trump rarely reads the articles, so he may just glance at the headlines, but this could be an indication that he is not interested in doing his own research and would rather pay other people to provide him with information. In such a case, Trump's view of the world will be dependent upon the people he has hired to provide him with information.

Hiring a man for leadership who depends upon other people for information is analogous to hiring a ventriloquist's dummy.

Ideally, before voters elected somebody, they would pass judgment on whether the candidate does his own thinking and researching, or whether he is dependent upon other people.

The Republicans make Trump look good

Although Trump irritates a lot of people, he has a lot of supporters as of December 2015, including my own mother. Why is he so popular?

In a previous document I made fun of his promises to "make America great again", but I also pointed out that one of the reasons I think he is popular is because his personality is more "normal". Trump is the only candidate that I have spent much time looking at simply because he is the only one that I don't mind looking at. The other candidates are so appalling that I would rather avoid them, especially the Democrat candidates.

How can millions of people tolerate an election in which they are given such choices for president as Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, and Bernie Sanders? I don't think Donald Trump would be appropriate for a top leadership position, but I can understand why people would vote for him when given those choices.

To cheer myself up, I sometimes fantasize that President Obama will soon announce:
"Since the polls are showing that most voters are dissatisfied with all of the candidates, we are postponing the 2016 election for one year, and we are requiring that the people select a new group of candidates and try again."

In an earlier document, I pointed out that when Michelle Obama is around Queen Elizabeth, Angela Merkel, or other government officials, she stands out in the crowd because she has a more normal personality. Government officials have bizarre personalities, but we usually do not notice how strange they are because they try to avoid contact with people who make them look bad. When Michelle Obama is around Queen Elizabeth or Angela Merkel, she makes both of them appear to be dreary zombies.

Carly Fiona also has a zombie-like personality. After she was criticized for not smiling very much, she tried to solve the problem by smiling throughout the following debate. However, people with dreary personalities cannot fix the problem simply by forcing themselves to smile. Rather than improve her image, the criticism of her became even more intense. For example, one of the women on the television show The View described her as "looking demented".

Donald Trump has a similar effect on the candidates as Michelle Obama. When he is next to the other candidates, he makes the other candidates seem emotionally weak and submissive. If Donald Trump was not running for president, the other Republican candidates would have a much better image. Jeb Bush might have become a popular candidate.

Furthermore, if Trump had enough self-control to avoid making crude insults, he would make the other candidates look even worse. And imagine the effect Trump would have on the candidates if he had intelligent proposals rather than vague promises.

The leaders of the Republican Party are worried that Trump will beat their candidates, but if the Republicans had higher-quality minds, they would realize that the reason Trump is beating their candidates is simply because their candidates are disgusting. Unfortunately, Republicans have a difficult time with criticism, and so they resist the possibility that their candidates are undesirable. Like a bunch of arrogant, ignorant savages, they imagine themselves as perfect and flawless, and they want to blame their problems on Trump.

Another way to look at this issue is that we could say that the Republicans are helping to elect Donald Trump by giving him competitors who are easily beaten. If Trump was in a contest with candidates who had more intelligent proposals and better control of their emotions, Trump would become the undesirable candidate.

The Republican Party could beat Trump if they offered a candidate who is more desirable than Trump, but they do not have the ability to make better decisions about candidates. If they had such an ability, they would have been selecting better candidates long ago. If they were forced to select another candidate, they would select another Israeli puppet who is just as undesirable as the current candidates.

For example, Bill Kristol, one of the Jews who pushed himself into a leadership position of the Republican Party, has just registered the website cheneycotton2016 because he is thinking that if Trump becomes the Republican candidate, he might support Dick Cheney and Tom Cotton as president and vice president. Are Cheney and Cotton an improvement over Donald Trump? I don't think so.

It should be noted that the Republicans made Trump sign an oath of loyalty to remain in the Republican Party and support the Republican nominee. Trump ought to demand that those Republicans practice what they preach and follow that oath of loyalty. Or maybe Trump should tell the Republicans that he wants them to sign an loath of loyalty.

I mentioned earlier that I like to cheer myself up by imagining that Obama will postpone the elections and demand a new set of candidates, but I don't think the people are capable of selecting better candidates. Therefore, in my fantasy, in 2017 Obama would once again postpone the elections for a year on the grounds that the people have still not selected candidates who are qualified to be president, and he would do this in 2018, and so on, year after year. That might be better than taking the risk that the voters elect Clinton or Sanders.

The reason it is useless to tell the American people to select new candidates is because the majority of voters refuse to become active participants in the process of selecting candidates. They allow a small group of Jews to choose candidates for them. When the voters do not like the choices that the Jews have provided, they merely whine about voting for the lesser of the evils. The majority of people are like sheep that can be raped, sheared, and abused over and over.

Furthermore, even if the majority of people would participate in selecting candidates, most of them lack the intellectual and emotional qualities necessary to select appropriate leaders.

Have you seen the movie 1984?

The voters in America and Europe have created governments that are full of criminals, idiots, religious fanatics, Israeli puppets, and neurotic zombies. These disgusting governments are allowing our nations to be conquered and destroyed by a small group of Jews.

There is a war going on right now with the Jews, but most people either cannot see it due to their intellectual or emotional problems, or they ignore it because they want to focus on pleasing themselves and don't care about the world's problems.

I did not read the book "1984", but I saw the movie. In the movie, the government was censoring and editing news articles in order to manipulate the people, and they were keeping the people angry at foreign nations to justify endless wars. The government officials were also very wealthy while the workers were poor and abused. Most of the citizens were like sheep who did not notice and/or care about the abuse, but a small number of citizens were resisting the abuse. When two of those people were arrested, they were put into a rehabilitation program to convert them into good citizens.

That movie is an accurate description of life in America and Europe, except that a few concepts were twisted to hide the truth. For example, it's not "the government" that censors and edits the news articles; it is the Jews who have gotten control of our media companies. And it's not "the government" that is keeping people angry at foreign nations and keeping us in constant wars. It is the Jews who instigate wars by fooling people into fearing and hating other nations.

Likewise, it is not "the government" that wants to puts people into rehabilitation programs. Although some communist government officials supported the concept of rehabilitation programs, if we were to examine the communist governments more thoroughly, I suspect that we would discover that these ideas came from Jews.

In the movie 1984, the resistance to the government was coming from a group of unorganized people who were following a book written by Emmanuel Goldstein. This was another distortion to hide the truth. In reality, it is the Jews who are fighting the governments with an unorganized network. However, they are following the Protocols of Zion, not a book written by Emmanuel Goldstein. (Although it is possible that the author of the Protocols was named Emmanuel Goldstein).

In the movie, the resistance network was fighting the government in order to free the people from oppression and abuse, but in reality, the network of Jews is fighting the governments in order to get control of our nations so that they can oppress and abuse us.

In the movie, the government was using the people as slaves and servants, but in reality, the Jews are trying to get control of our society so that they become wealthy, and they can make us become their slaves and servants. They plan to keep us under control with propaganda, executions, and rehabilitation programs.

A lot of what the Jews are doing can be seen in their movies and television shows. For example, take a look at The Invaders television show and the movie The Matrix.

We are winning the war, but at what cost?

The majority of people are apathetic, selfish sheep who will not help us in this war. They are deserters. As a result, only a small number of people are fighting the Jews, and this is causing the battle to go on year after year.

Although the Jews are losing the battle, it is taking so long to beat them that they are destroying America and Europe in the process. The Jews are now in what might be their last and most desperate battle. They are struggling to flood America and Europe with refugees and immigrants in the hope of creating fights and chaos.

There are so many Germans who are upset with the importation of refugees that the Jews selected Angela Merkel as Person Of The Year in order to boost her image.

Unfortunately, although some Germans are upset with Merkel, most Germans do nothing and say nothing. They behave like submissive, beaten dogs. When are they going to do something about the Jews?

When will the French do something about the Jews? Are they going to wait until there are so many millions of immigrants who are speaking so many different languages that the French businesses and government offices have to create recorded messages that say, "Press 1 for French, 2 for Arabic, 3 for Mandarin..."

The answer to those questions is that most Germans and French are never going to do anything about the Jews. The majority of people will not do anything to help their nation no matter how bad the situation becomes. Proof of this can be seen throughout history. All improvements come from a small minority. The majority of people never do anything except feed themselves, play with babies, have sex, and struggle for material wealth. That is all they have done in the past, and that is all we can expect from them in the future.

Most people look for excuses to do nothing. They claim they are helpless, but they could do a tremendous amount of good simply by helping to spread information about our problems. However, they don't want to spread information about how the Jews blew up the World Trade Center towers, or that the Jews are lying about the world wars or the Holocaust. They want to talk about Lady Gaga and the football games.

The social environment of America and Europe is deteriorating. If this battle goes on for a few more decades, America and Europe will have so many immigrants and refugees that people may start fighting over who the land belongs to. In the southwest of America, for example, the Spanish-speaking immigrants will eventually dominate the government offices, schools, police departments, and businesses. When that happens, they might demand that Spanish become the official language of the area. Most of those immigrants know the metric system, and so they might also demand that America switch to the metric system.

The philosophy of multi-culturalism is unrealistic, and it is destroying the social environment of America and Europe. In addition, America is deteriorating in other ways as a result of our incompetent, corrupt, and disgusting government. For example, this article claims that about 700 water lines break every day in America. Although most of those breaks are insignificant and quickly repaired, the point I want to bring to your attention is that many of our industrial machines, bridges, water lines, and train tracks are old or low-quality.

In my opinion, we should let America and Europe continue to deteriorate. Rather than waste our time and resources trying to fix our deteriorating cities, train tracks, factories, and water lines, and rather than try to fix our government, schools, or economic system, we should create some new cities and experiment with a new government system, a new school system, and a new economic system. We can leave the existing cities for the sheeple.

Cities should discriminate against people and organizations

A lot of people around the world complained when Donald Trump suggested that America temporarily ban Muslims from entering America, but I think every organization should be allowed to discriminate against who they bring into their organization. Nations and even cities should also be able to discriminate against who visits them as a tourist. We don't owe anybody the right to visit us.

We could restate this concept as: No person or organization should have the right to force themselves on somebody else or on some other organization.

America is allowing the Amish people to create their own communities and follow their own culture. Why not expand on this concept? Why not create some new cities and let each city have their own culture and decide who they want in their community?

America set aside 56 million acres of land for 326 different reservations for the Native Americans. We could set aside some land for the people who would like to join me in creating some new cities.

The Native American reservations have a bad image, but they could be impressive cities. Nobody is stopping the Native Americans from creating beautiful cities with farms, greenhouses, research parks, and an impressive school system.

However, the Native American reservations, the Amish communities, and all small towns around the world suffer from a serious problem; namely, in this modern world, people can no longer survive by chasing after pigs with sharp sticks. People today need to learn skills. Unfortunately, the children in the small communities who learn a useful skill have almost always have to move to a larger city in order to find a job. This causes the small communities to become dominated by people who are uneducated, elderly, or stupid.

In order for the concept of an independent city to be successful, the city must be large enough so that the children can find jobs in their city. The cities also have to be physically separated from one another so that we don't have people living in one city and working in another. That is the reason the red areas on the map (below) that I created for this article are so large. Each of the red areas would be one, independent city.

It is acceptable to discriminate against organizations

Before America became an independent nation, many of its residents were religious fanatics from England. When America became independent, those fanatics wanted America to guarantee the citizens the right to practice any religion they pleased.

I agree that people should have the freedom to discuss life and the universe, but America's freedom of religion is being used to support organized religions. I would say there is a subtle but important difference between religious "beliefs" and "organized religions". Religious beliefs are just intangible thoughts inside our mind, but organized religions are groups of people that have a structure and purpose. They are like businesses, charities, and sports teams.

Americans have the freedom to create businesses, but we cannot create any business we please. For example, if you were to create a pharmaceutical business that produced deceptive or dangerous drugs, you would be arrested. If you were to set up an investment firm that was running a pyramid scheme, you would be arrested. If you were to create a chemical company that dumped toxic chemicals into a river, you would be arrested.

We have the freedom to create businesses, but we don't allow businesses to abuse people or the environment. We should not tolerate organized religions that cause trouble for society, either. Unfortunately, all organized religions are troublesome because all of them promote detrimental attitudes. They all encourage their members to believe that they are superior to other people, and they encourage their members to associate with their own religion rather than mingle with other religions.

When a society consists of people who divide up into organized religions, they reduce the friendliness of their social environment. These incompatible groups of people cause a society to resemble a gathering place of different tribes, similar to the way different species of animals will gather around a large pool of water to drink, but ignore one another.

An example of this concept are the Orthodox Jews in New York City. They are not members of American society. They are ignoring us and our culture and are following their own culture, as if they were a separate, independent society. They have their own holiday celebrations, their own calendar, and refuse to mingle with other people, including other Jews.

If you were to move into a neighborhood that was full of Orthodox Jews, you would not feel as if you were living among friends or neighbors. They might be kind to you, but they would treat you in the same manner that they treat their cows and sheep, not in the manner that they treat their friends or relatives.

When a person immigrates to a different society, he should be interested in joining that society and adapting to their culture. No society should accept an immigrant simply because he wants to share their material wealth, or because he wants one of their jobs, or because he is trying to escape from the police.

We should not accept an immigrant who will not abandon his culture and follow our culture. If he wants to follow his own culture, then he should stay in his own nation.

Even the dumbest leaders of businesses, orchestras, sports groups, and military units are smart enough to understand that it is idiotic to accept a person into their team if he has no interest in becoming a team member.

When a city consists entirely of Amish people, or entirely of Muslims, everybody in the city will get along with everybody else, and the social environment will be pleasant. However, when we mix incompatible groups of people, we create an unpleasant social environment.

Comedians could create skits in which the stockholders of IBM replace their current executives with people who promote multi-culturalism for businesses. Imagine the IBM management hiring groups of Amish people, Orthodox Jews, migrants from Pakistan, and Syrian refugees, even though those people have no desire to become team members of IBM, or any useful skills.

Try to visualize an IBM office building in which a group of Amish employees have removed the computers from their cubicles and replaced the electric lightbulbs above them with some kerosene lamps, and they spend their time weaving cotton into thread and making horseshoes.

Next to them are cubicles of Orthodox Jews who are following a different language, a different calendar, and a different holiday schedule. Occasionally they hold chickens in the air and dance around them.

The cubicles next to them have Syrian refugees who don't speak English or have any useful skills. Next to them are cubicles of people from India who are worshiping cows and rats.

Every business, nation, and other organization should be a team of people who work together and get along with one another. Every member should be able to contribute something of value to the team. We hurt the morale and the social environment of an organization when we accept members who follow a different language or culture, or who cannot or will not contribute to the team and end up becoming parasites or criminals.

Imagine sports teams behaving like religions

No city or nation should have to tolerate organized religions. People should be free to believe whatever they please about the universe, but nobody should have the right to impose their organized religion on society. It might help you to understand why I say this if you imagine other organizations behaving in the same manner as religions.

For example, imagine if the people who played sports behaved in the same arrogant, intolerant manner as the people who join organized religions. In such a case, the people who played football would join a football church, and the people who played volleyball would be members of a volleyball church, and so on, and all of these groups would look down on one another for being evil and misguided.

Imagine each of the sports groups sending people through your neighborhood to promote their particular sport. Imagine people repeatedly knocking on your door, but instead of finding a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon, you find a football player, basketball player, or rugby player who is trying to convince you that you should join his sport and play only his sport because his sport is good, and the others are bad.

Imagine that when you meet a person who plays a different sport than you, he gives you a lecture on how you should "see the light" and join the only proper sport.

Imagine the different sports groups arguing over whose slogan should be printed on money. The football players demand "In Football We Trust", and the basketball players want "In Basketball We Trust", and so on.

Imagine that during Christmas, each of the sports groups promotes their particular sport to be the official Christmas celebration sport. Instead of pushing the city into displaying scenes of a baby Jesus or Hanukkah symbol, each sports group pushes the city into displaying the symbols of their particular sport.

Imagine that each of the sports teams argues that the public school system should promote their particular sport, but none of the others. Each sports team also demands that the children start each day at school with a prayer for their particular sport.

I could continue, but hopefully you see the point I'm trying to make; namely, that if the groups of football players, rugby players, etc., behaved like the organized religions, you would not describe them as "athletes" who are "playing sports". You would describe them as "members of arrogant, intolerant, and abusive organizations".

Likewise, religious people are not "people with a certain philosophy". They are members of an arrogant, intolerant, and abusive organizations.

Furthermore, religions promote the idea that certain areas of the world are "sacred". For example, Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe a certain part of the Middle East is sacred. In Hawaii, the construction of a telescope on the top of a volcano has been halted as a result of some Hawaiians claiming that the volcano is sacred.

Imagine if other organizations were behaving like this. Imagine all businesses, schools, orchestras, and sports groups claiming that certain areas of the world were sacred to them. Imagine all of them having temper tantrums whenever somebody tried to build a road, home, or farm on one of their sacred plots of land.

It should be obvious that if other organizations were to behave like religions, people would be disgusted with their behavior. So why aren't people disgusted with the organized religions? It is because we grew up with organized religions behaving in this manner, so this appalling behavior seems normal and natural.

Furthermore, it is natural for humans and animals to form arrogant groups that fear and fight with neighboring groups, and so organized religions are more natural to us than the alternative, which is to treat other people as friends. Social animals have a strong craving to form groups and to fight with other groups.

A city should decide which organizations it wants

By understanding our emotional cravings, we can design society to suppress our crude characteristics and encourage productive behavior. One way of doing this is to let cities pass judgment on which organizations are beneficial, and allow a city to prohibit the organizations that encourage animal behavior.

A city should be able to decide if they want charities, sports groups, religions, and music bands, and if so, which of them. No person should have the right to force his particular organization on other people.

The organized religions claim to be teaching good values and good attitudes, but in reality they encourage people to behave like animals. They encourage arrogance, and they encourage people to separate and fight with each other. If people want to believe in one or more gods, that is acceptable, but an organized religion is not a belief in god. Rather, it is an organization of people.

We benefit when people discuss their ideas about the universe and life, but we do not benefit when religions fight over the correct religion, or when they send people to our neighborhoods to convert us to their religion, or when they give us lectures on how we are going to burn in hell if we do not convert to their religion.

People with initiative are not necessarily good leaders

A person who has "initiative" or "self-motivation" is valuable to businesses because he doesn't need somebody to push him into doing his job. He will certainly benefit when he can work with people who can inspire and motivate him, but he is capable of working on is own.

All animals and prehistoric humans had the initiative to take care of themselves. No animal needs to be told to look for food or take care of their children. The reason is simply because the animals that have less of an ability or desire to take care of themselves have less success in surviving and reproducing.

As humans settled into cities, people who had less initiative were able to survive and reproduce. Modern society provides people with a lot of different ways to make a living. People can survive by crime, begging, government welfare, and finding a spouse who will support them. Our government agencies, universities, and charities also provide a lot of simplistic jobs for people who don't want to do much of anything, or who don't have the talent to do much of anything.

Although people with initiative have the ability to take care of themselves, they are not necessarily going to be useful as one of the leaders for society. The reason is because the source of their motivation may be something that causes them to make undesirable decisions. Consider the following three people, each with a different type of motivation:

• Benjamin Sifrit
As I described in this document, Benjamin Sifrit and his wife committed crimes, including murder, for entertainment. He was not a lazy, unmotivated man who wanted to sit in front of a television or feel sorry for himself. He was a physically active man with a lot of motivation to do something to make his life better. However, his mental disorders caused him to come to the conclusion that the way to improve his life was to commit crimes.

• Mark Cuban
He is a billionaire businessman who said in an interview that when he was younger, "I used to drive around, look at the big houses and imagine what it would be like to live there, and use that as motivation."

Cuban does not sit in front of a television or whine about life. He has tremendous motivation, but what is the source of his motivation? It seems to be an intense craving for material wealth. Would he make a useful leader for society? An intense craving for wealth might be useful in a free enterprise system, but I don't think a government will be of much value when the top leaders have material wealth as their primary goal in life.

• Rich Piana
He is a successful bodybuilder. He made this interesting video in which he explains how he got started taking testosterone. He lost a bodybuilding contest as a teenager, and he became so upset that he decided to travel to Mexico to buy some testosterone in the hope that the hormone would help him build his muscles so that he could win the next contest.

He did not know if the Mexicans were selling him real testosterone, and he did not know how to inject it, or how much to inject, or how often to inject it. There was no Internet yet, so he could not search for information on the issue. He had to guess at what to do. He says that he was willing to take such risks simply because he could not stand losing a contest. He wants to win, and he says that he will do whatever it takes to win. He doesn't see any point in practicing for a contest if he is going to lose.

Piana's attitude may be common among successful athletes because all of the top athletes seem to have a very strong desire to win contests. They do not like losing.

If we could make a duplicate of an athlete's body, but put an ordinary person's brain into it, and then let him compete with that athlete, we would have two different people with identical athletic abilities. However, I think the athlete would beat the ordinary person in an athletic event because he would have a much greater desire to win the contest, so he would push himself harder and tolerate a higher level of pain.

It is necessary for athletes to have a strong desire to win contests, but I doubt if that type of craving would be useful for the top leaders of society. I suspect that the people who would be the most useful in the top positions would be those who have a strong desire to understand our social problems and explore our options for the future. Their motivation should be to create a better society for all of us.

What motivates Donald Trump?

Donald Trump has a lot of motivation, but for what? He seems to have intense cravings for material wealth like Mark Cuban, but unlike Cuban, he also seems to have intense cravings to be the center of attention. Is there any evidence that during Trump's life he has showed the initiative to analyze our social problems or create a better world for us? I don't see it.

A business would never hire a person to supervise a scientific laboratory if he had no interest conducting scientific experiments, or if he had been a failure with experiments. Businesses want to find managers who have both an interest in the job, and the talent to do the job.

Ideally, voting would be restricted to people who have the same attitude. The top leaders of a society have to deal with economic issues, human behavior, crime, education, transportation, and a lot of other complex problems. The voters should look for candidates who have shown an interest in dealing with these issues.

Of the candidates who have shown an interest in society's problems, the voters should then pass judgment on which of them has shown that they have the talent to develop intelligent analyses and suggestions.

If Trump's source of motivation is material wealth and fame, then he will be motivated to find ways to increase his pile of material items and his fame. He will not be interested in analyzing our social problems or making decisions that would be best for society.

What motivates the other candidates?

All of the political candidates have a lot of motivation. They spend a lot of time traveling around the nation, giving speeches, and shaking people's hands. They are not lazy people. They are motivated, but what motivates them?

Their motivation seems to be an abnormally strong craving to be the center of attention and feel important. They are willing to give up their freedom and independence and do whatever is necessary to attract our attention. They have a craving for attention that reminds me of a puppy dog.

Unfortunately, our emotions are most strongly attracted to the "puppy dog candidates" because we are selfish, arrogant creatures who enjoy people who praise us, promise to serve us, make us feel important, and blame our problems on other people or other nations. We do not like people who criticize us, put pressure on us to work, or make us feel stupid, uneducated, untalented, irresponsible, or dishonest.

To make this situation worse, nations that have democracies promote the attitude that the best government is a group of submissive representatives who do whatever their particular supporters tell them to do.

A democracy encourages us to follow our crude, animal cravings. This is another example of how it would be helpful to understand our emotions and design society to compensate for our crude characteristics. Voters should be encouraged to control their selfishness and arrogance and look for candidates who show an ability and desire to deal with society's problems and provide us with guidance.

Are criminals "cowards"?

An Italian artist, Alexsandro Palombo, recently created some drawings of cartoon characters to make it look as if the women had been beaten by men. An interesting aspect of this artwork is that he is referring to the men as "cowards".

This is a common insult among men. For example, after the 9/11 attacks occurred, I heard many men insult the Arab terrorists as "cowards". At the time the attack occurred, I believed the propaganda that Arabs had attacked us, but I did not use the word "coward" to describe them. I thought the Arabs were showing a lot of courage, self-control, and dedication.

For another example, Shannon Miles sneaked up behind a Sheriff's deputy, and then shot and killed him. Many news reports describe him as a "coward", but what is cowardly about that crime? The fact that he killed a sheriff will probably cause your emotions to distort your thinking, so imagine a slightly different scenario. Imagine that a crime gang is trying to rob a bank that you are in, and somebody sneaks up to one of the gang members and shoots him. Would you insult that person for being a "coward"?

Why are criminals frequently referred to as "cowards"? I think it is because we are monkeys. Male animals are in constant competition with one another for status. As a result, animals have evolved an admiration for the males that win fights, not the males who run away. Furthermore, one of the jobs of the male animals is to protect the females and children from predators, and this has caused animals to admire the males who have the courage to chase away the predators.

Since we admire men who win fights rather than men who run away, we can hurt a man emotionally by referring to him as a "coward". So, why do men refer to male criminals as "cowards"?

It is for the same reason that we yell insults at drivers who irritate us, which is the same reason that Donald Trump insults people who irritate him. Specifically, a criminal stimulates our anger, and our reaction is to hurt him. Calling a criminal a "coward" is the human equivalent of barking or growling.

Referring to criminals as "cowards" is as idiotic as barking at them. The criminal does not care that we call him a coward, and our insults do nothing to reduce crime, or undo the problem that the criminal caused. We could say that a person who calls a criminal a "coward" is behaving the same as when Donald Trump called Rosie O'Donnell a "fat pig".

Some people will insult a murderer for killing a person "in cold blood", or killing a person "in the back." This is another interesting aspect of monkey behavior. When monkeys fight with each other for status, they normally do not sneak up on one another and attack one another "in the back". Monkeys usually fight for status in a somewhat "fair" manner.

Humans and monkeys, especially the males, enjoy fighting for status. Humans have created a variety of violent sports, such as boxing, rugby, and football to satisfy these cravings. These sports are the human equivalent of monkeys who are fighting for status. As with monkeys, we do not want to cause permanent injuries or death, and we do not want men to attack one another by sneaking up behind each other.

When a criminal attacks a person from behind, our emotions become stimulated for two reasons. First, because he committed a crime, and second, because he attacked somebody unfairly. However, we are wasting our time when we react by making angry facial expressions and insulting the criminal. We may as well react by barking like a dog, or by calling the criminal a "fat pig". The most appropriate reaction to crime is to analyze the issue and experiment with different policies.

Men are not worse than women

Alexsandro Palombo and the feminists imply that men have worse behavior than women. They imply that men abuse women, but women do not abuse anybody. If you can understand that there is only one genetic blueprint for humans, and that it is both male and female, then you can understand how idiotic it is to say that one sex is better than the other. We are simply different.

When an egg is fertilized, it acquires genetic characteristics for a brain, but it is neither a male brain nor a female brain. It is simply a human brain. If that fetus turns out to be a male, then his brain will be given subtle modifications as it develops, but it is the same brain that he would have if he had been female.

If a fertilized egg inherits a brain that has an abnormal craving for status, it will develop into either a male with an abnormal craving for status, or a female with an abnormal craving for status. Because the male and female minds are slightly different, that abnormal craving will result in slightly different behavior. For example, it might result in a man who struggles to be wealthy, whereas a woman might prefer to win beauty contests or become an actress.

For another example, men have a strong interest in sex, whereas women have a strong interest in being chased after and titillated with gifts and attention. Therefore, if a fetus contains the genetic information to produce an abnormally intense craving for a mate, if the fetus becomes a male, he might spend an abnormal amount of time trying to have sex or watching pornography, but if that fetus becomes a female, she might flirt excessively with men in order to satisfy her abnormal craving to be pursued by men, or she might spend an abnormal amount of time reading romantic novels.

Female humans are not as violent as male humans, but that does not make them "better". When parents produce children, they are not producing boys and girls. They are producing "humans" that develop into males and females. There are different ways of looking at this concept. For example:
• For every undesirable boy, there will be an undesirable girl.
• There are no undesirable boys or undesirable girls. There are only undesirable humans that develop into either male or female, or some combination of male and female.

We are hurting society when we allow people to promote the theory that men are worse than women. That philosophy encourages fights between men and women. No business would tolerate employees who are instigating fights between other employees. Ideally, the leaders of a society would stop people from promoting destructive attitudes.

There is a subtle difference between using our "freedom of speech" to discuss issues and promoting destructive attitudes, but nobody in leadership positions seems to be aware of that difference, or care about it.

The feminist movement is just one of the bad attitudes that need to be suppressed. There are others, such as the groups of black Americans who promote the attitude that black people are being abused by white policemen. Those groups are not discussing issues, doing research, or offering suggestions to improve society. They are angry people who are having temper tantrums.

Have you noticed how many of the people in the protests are hiding their faces, and sometimes covering all of their skin? Who are these people?

The protests inspire idiotic behavior, not intelligent discussions. For example, these high school girls were inspired to wear these T-shirts.

Nobody benefits from the idiotic demonstrations, or when Caucasians wear T-shirts that state "I Can't Breathe". This is not improving life for black people, or anybody else.

Ideally, the leaders of a society would encourage beneficial attitudes, and they would deal with the people who encourage hatred, have temper tantrums, or inspire obnoxious behavior.

Can you support higher standards of behavior?

As I mentioned many times, if we create some new cities, nothing will improve unless we restrict the city to people who are better behaved than the people in existing cities. We must set higher standards of behavior for both the people in the city, and leaders of the city, but how many people are capable of enforcing the standards?

All throughout history we find people demanding "tough law enforcement", but most people change their attitude when they, or one of their friends or relatives, is caught misbehaving. In order for a city to have less crime, vandalism, corruption, and other problems, we must be willing to enforce the laws on everybody. How many people have enough self-control to do this?

During a rainstorm in December 2015 in China, some gigantic piles of dirt and construction waste turned into mud and flowed over the nearby city, destroying buildings and killing a lot of people. The Chinese people and government knew that this pile of dirt was dangerous, but not enough of them cared.

Problems are not equally distributed among the human population. Certain cities, neighborhoods, and nations have more trouble with burglaries, unemployment, rape, corruption, drugs, murders, gambling, alcoholism, spitting in the streets, and slurring of speech.

The people who don't want to believe in genetics will blame the regional differences in behavior on intangible concepts, such as poverty, but the reason these variations exist is because we are not genetically identical to one another.

For example, we have subtle differences in our vocal cords, mouth, and brain, and that causes some people to have trouble pronouncing words. (I have some documents and audio files about this issue here and here.)

Crime and corruption seems to be worse in central Asia than in Japan and Europe, but it's not because of poverty or ignorance. It is because of the genetic differences between the people.

If we were to create some new cities with people who are better behaved than the others, life in those cities would be noticeably more pleasant than in any of the others. However, as soon as the people begin reproducing, they will produce children with a wide variety of genetic characteristics. Some of those children will become psychotic, some will become criminals, and some will become parasites.

What will the people do about those badly behaved children? Will they allow their children to spray graffiti in the city, form crime networks, leave litter around the city, and stage idiotic protests over police brutality?

Are you willing to enforce standards of behavior on your children? If not, and if other people cannot do it either, then nothing is going to improve.

If one of your children were to commit a murder, you might be willing to let society evict him from the city or execute him, but what if one of your children does something less irritating, such as littering, or sabotaging one of his competitors?

All nations today are reacting to crimes according to how angry the crime makes us feel. This is allowing the people who commit certain types of crimes to either get away with their crime, or be punished briefly and then allowed back into society. This is most obvious with the people who commit complex, intangible crimes that don't stimulate our emotions, such as certain types of financial crimes.

When a mentally ill person commits a crime, a lot of people will feel sorry for him rather than become angry at him, and this allows criminals to get away with their crimes if they can convince people that they are mentally ill.

We also do not become as angry with criminals when they fail in their crimes. For an example, in 2011 a 16-year-old girl, Zhanna Smsarian, was arrested for pouring hydrochloric acid over another girl's head. She admitted to the police that she wanted "to burn the eyes out" of the other girl. She did not explain why she wanted to do this, but the victim's mother believes Smsarian was envious of her daughter's success.

Zhanna Smsarian was not put in jail, executed, or evicted for her crime. Instead, she had to complete a "mental health program". It seems that the main reason that Smsarian did not get into trouble is because the acid did not cause much damage, and the reason was because the teacher reacted quickly by helping the victim rinse her face.

Most people react to crimes like an animal; they do not think about the issue. Therefore, when a person commits a crime but does not cause much damage, people do not become very angry, and so they consider his crime to be less significant than a crime which causes a lot of damage. Who benefits from this attitude? The criminals benefit, not the better behaved people.

If a person were to rob you, and after you gave him money, he shoots you with a gun, he would be considered guilty of murder only if he kills you. If his gun jams, or if the bullet misses you or only injures you, he will have an easier time getting away with his crime.

A more sensible policy is that anybody who commits certain types of crimes is showing unacceptable behavior regardless of whether they fail at their crime. A person who tries to burn a building should be considered unacceptable for modern society regardless of whether the fire department can put the fire out before it causes much damage. A person who shoots you with a gun should also be considered unacceptable for society regardless of where the bullet ends up.

When we consider some crimes to be "small" and allow the criminals to continue living among us, we end up with the type of situation we have right now in which people are committing crimes over and over.

An example can be seen in the mug shot to the right in which the police took a mug shot of a man who was wearing a T-shirt that showed his previous mug shot. Now he will be able to make a T-shirt of that photo.

Despite the problems with corruption in China, some of the Chinese people are putting a lot of effort into developing nice communities.

An example is Shanshui City (to the right and below).

At the moment, the Chinese are only building neighborhoods within a city, but we could do this on the scale of an entire city.

This would provide us with a city that is clean, quiet, and easy to travel around. It would also provide us with easy access to recreational areas.

If voters around the world were capable of providing their nation with better leaders, then every nation would put its effort into dealing with their problems and improving life. We would be inspiring one another and learning from one another.

We are not going to get that type of world simply by electing Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. It requires that we push ourselves into discussing issues, looking critically at our brilliant ideas, and experimenting with our options. We will experience some emotional pain in the process, but as I wrote here, deal with it!
Find the strength to do this, and let's get going!