In previous documents I recommended that every organization, including nations, be allowed to discriminate against who is a member of their organization. No nation should be required to accept refugees or immigrants. In this section of the document, I will discuss two arguments that people are using as of February 2018 to justify allowing more immigration.

Some people are pushing us into accepting more immigrants and refugees on the grounds that America was created by immigrants. It is true that America was created by immigrants, but that is true of every nation.

For example, the people in North America who refer to themselves as "Native Americans" are not native to this area. Their ancestors migrated into North America from Asia.

Many Native Americans whine about their ancestors being killed and conquered by cruel Europeans who invaded their homeland, but the Native Americans behaved in virtually the same manner as the Europeans.

After the tribes of Asians crossed into North and South America, they fought with one another on a regular basis. They drove one another off their homeland, killed one another, stole items from each other, and raped each other's women. They behaved exactly like the Europeans, and all other groups of humans and animals.

The Native Americans are not better behaved than the Europeans. Their behavior is virtually the same as that of other groups of people. They are not a superior, peaceful race of humans that was abused by cruel, violent Europeans.

The Native Americans have slightly different genetics than other races, but all humans are very similar to one another because we are all closely related. We all have very similar behavior. All groups of humans have been behaving like packs of monkeys. All groups of humans have been wandering around the planet, fighting over territory, and pushing neighboring tribes off of their "homeland".

The races and nations that whine about being innocent victims of abusive, selfish, or violent people should be told to face the reality that they are no better than anybody else. They should be told to shut up.

Is there any nation that can truly claim to be "native" to their particular land? If humans evolved from monkeys at some particular location in Africa, it is possible that there are still people living in that particular area who can trace their ancestry back to those original monkeys.

Therefore, those particular Africans could make the claim that they are the true natives to the planet earth, and that their particular plot of land is truly their homeland. But where is that land where the humans evolved? Nobody has any idea, and it is not likely that any nation today has boundaries that match that particular area. Therefore, it is absurd for any nation to claim that their people are native to their particular land. Instead, every nation should admit that they are a nation of immigrants; a nation of invaders.

A nation is just an intangible concept. The boundaries of a nation can change, and the people in a nation change through the generations. The land that a nation claims to be its own is also constantly changing as a result of earthquakes, rain, and the pounding of ocean waves. A nation is not a fixed, permanent entity, and the people in a nation are not a specific group of people. Each person in a nation is a temporary member of an ever-changing nation.

This concept applies to all organizations. Every organization, such as a business, football team, and orchestra, is an intangible concept. They are groups of people, and just like nations, the groups are not fixed, permanent entities. Organizations change through time, and the members change through the centuries. Furthermore, every organization could be described as an "organization of immigrants".

The employees of IBM, for example, are not "native" to IBM. They are "immigrants" to IBM. Likewise, the athletes who are members of a particular football team are immigrants to that team, not "natives" to that team.

For a person to claim that the USA should accept every immigrant and refugee simply because a lot of the American people were immigrants is as ridiculous as somebody demanding that IBM hire whoever wants to become an employee of IBM simply because the other employees were immigrants, also.

None of the people who work in the personnel departments of corporations are so stupid or submissive that they would hire somebody because of that idiotic reason, but many of our government officials and voters are swayed by such "reasoning", or intimidated by the aggressive people pushing that argument.

We need to provide ourselves with leaders who will follow the immigration policies of militaries and businesses. Specifically, every nation should be allowed to discriminate against who becomes a member of their nation, just as every business is allowed to discriminate against who they hire, and just as you are allowed to discriminate against who becomes your spouse or friend.
 

Some immigrants complain that our immigration policies are separating them from their families, but in reality, the immigrants are the people responsible for separating themselves from their family. They abandoned their family, their nation, their friends, their neighbors, and all of their relatives, and moved to America. They are the people who separated themselves from their family, not you, me, or anybody in our nation.

Furthermore, they chose to make that separation. We did not force them, push them, or even ask them to do it. We have no responsibility for their separation from their family. They are entirely responsible for it.

Unfortunately some of the immigrants are so ignorant, selfish, crude, and/or arrogant that they will not accept responsibility for what they have done. They blame you and me for separating them from their family.

In my opinion, an immigrant who complains to us that we are separating him from his family is a disgusting person with a disgusting attitude, and he should be deported. We are not going to benefit from that type of immigrant.

The type of immigrant we will benefit from is one who brings a pleasant attitude, and who adapts to our society and contributes something of value. We are not going to benefit from selfish, arrogant people who blame us for their self-inflicted problems. We don't owe them or their families anything. They chose to come here by themselves, and we do not have an obligation to give citizenship to their relatives.

It might help you to realize how disgusting these people are behaving if you imagine it happening to a business. Imagine that an IBM facility in New York State announces that they are looking for an employee, and a person in Texas applies for the job. He accepts the job, and he moves to New York State by himself, leaving his family and friends in Texas.

After a few months, he starts whining that IBM is separating him from his family. He demands that the IBM facility in New York hire his family members in Texas so that they can all live together in New York State. Imagine him and other employees staging a protest outside the IBM facilities to whine that IBM is "separating families".

When a person accepts a job in another area, and when he leaves behind his family and friends to take the job, it is his choice to separate himself from his friends and family, so it is idiotic for him to complain that the business is separating him from his family. He made the decision to do it, so he is responsible for it.

Business executives are not so stupid or emotionally weak that they would tolerate an employee who makes such an idiotic argument, but many of our government officials and voters are swayed or intimidated by this argument.

Imagine an even more absurd situation; specifically, imagine if immigrants began whining that we are separating them from their friends.

Or, for an even more absurd situation, imagine the immigrants whining that we are separating them from their neighbors, and that we should allow their entire neighborhood to become citizens.

We need leaders with the emotional ability to stand up to these abusive, selfish immigrants, and deport them. We need leaders who will create more sensible immigration policies.

The USA provides most people with a much more pleasant life than they would have in what we refer to as the "Third World" nations. As a result, a lot of people in those miserable nations want to abandon their nation and move to the USA. However, most of them want to come here only to get access to our material wealth, food, less crowded conditions, and higher quality people, as opposed to coming here because they want to become American citizens, adapt to our culture, and become our friends.

In previous documents, I described many of the immigrants as being analogous to rats that want to live in our house because they want the warmth, food, and the material items that our houses offer them. The rats are not coming into our house to be our friend, or adapt to our culture, or contribute to our lives. The rats regard our home as an opportunity, and they see us as an invader, not a friend. The rats do not care whether we want them in our house. From their point of view, you and I are intruders into their home.

Likewise, some of the people who emigrate to America are coming here only to get access to our material wealth or large food supplies, or to get away from the police or ridicule. They are not grateful that we accepted them. Rather, they regard our nation as their land, and they want to practice their customs and speak their language. They are not interested in adapting to our culture and joining us. They are not interested in becoming our friends, or contributing to our society. They don't even regard us as potential friends. They see us as pests who are interfering with what they want to do. They are analogous to rats, not team members. Many of them do not even care if we want them. They force themselves on us.

Our nation is practicing an immigration policy that no business would practice. Specifically, if a person from another nation gives birth to a child within the United States, that child becomes a US citizen.

Furthermore, those babies are given permanent citizenship for their entire lifetime, and nobody can take it away from them, no matter how badly they behave.

It might help you to understand how stupid this policy is if you imagine a business practicing it. Imagine if IBM hired any person who happened to have been born on land that IBM owns. In such a case, women would travel from around the world to give birth on the land outside of an IBM facility, and then IBM would give jobs to those babies.

Furthermore, imagine that the baby is given a permanent job for his entire life, and that nobody can fire him no matter how badly he behaves.

Businesses, orchestras, sports teams, and other organizations require that everybody go through the process of applying to become a member. No organization gives permanent, lifetime membership to a person simply because he was born on their land, or because he has a family member in the organization. Unfortunately, many of our government officials and voters regard such a concept as a sensible policy for a nation.

Life is not "fair". To some of people, life is wonderful. They have excellent physical and mental health, and their parents were well behaved people who provided them with a pleasant childhood.

To other people, life is constant suffering. Some of them were born with horrible genetic disorders, and some were born into families with neurotic parents that raped, beat, or abused the children.

The same is true of organizations. Some organizations have managers who are well behaved and respectable, and who have created a pleasant environment for the employees, whereas other organizations, such as those in Hollywood and the entertainment businesses, have some neurotic, selfish, sexually abusive, or psychotic managers who have created a miserable environment for their employees.

The same concept applies to nations. Specifically, life is much more pleasant for more people in the USA, Europe, Japan, and Taiwan than it is in the other nations.

Many Americans are promoting the attitude that we should allow the people in the miserable nations to emigrate to America so that we can provide them with a better life, but this is an impractical solution to the problem. There are too many people in the world who want to live in the USA for us to take them all.

Furthermore, they are reproducing in such large numbers that if we were to take them all, we would end up just as overcrowded and miserable as their nations.

The nations that are miserable need to start looking critically at their culture and experiment with improvements. We should not feel guilty that the people in those nations are suffering. They are suffering because of their own decisions. It is their responsibility to take care of themselves. They are not our responsibility.

In regards to the people who are suffering within our own nation, the only solution to that problem is to restrict reproduction to people who are in better mental and physical health. We are being cruel when we allow genetically defective people to reproduce because they are very likely to create more miserable people.

An interesting example is Kevin Spacey's family. Kevin's brother, Randall Fowler, said that both his father and mother were abusive, and his father would rape and torment the children. Randall said that he did not want to have children because he was worried that he was carrying the horrible genetic characteristics that he saw in his parents. He did not want to give birth to a child that resembled his parents.

Randall Fowler has the admirable quality of not wanting to create more freaks, but there are lots of people who don't care whether their children are defective. They want babies to entertain themselves, and they don't care about the quality of their children's lives, or what effect their children have on other people. We need law enforcement personnel and government officials who can stand up to those abusive, selfish people and restrict them from reproducing.

As far as I know, Randall Fowler did not become a rapist, or an abuser of children, so he may not have inherited his father's mental disorders, but he is likely to be carrying those genes. Therefore, if he were to have children, there is a possibility that he would produce some disgusting children. However, his brother Kevin has been accused of raping boys and abuse, so Kevin inherited some of the mental problems of his parents. If Kevin were to have children, he would be an even greater likelihood than Randall of creating disgusting children.

Every organization has its own, unique "culture" regardless of whether the organization is as small as a family, as large as a nation, or in between, such as a corporation, sports team, or orchestra. Their culture sets up a hierarchy; unites the members into a team; provides them with rules to follow; arranges for social and recreational activities; and encourages a certain attitude towards life.

Although many people promote the attitude that we have only one correct option in life, we actually have an infinite number of options. For example, if a business decides to provide cubicles to their employees, they have an infinite number of options in regards to the size of the cubicles, and whether they have any color, plants, or artistic decorations.

There are an infinite number of ways of designing and decorating work areas.

The cultural options of a organization are chosen primarily by the management, but the members influence the culture both directly and indirectly. They influence it directly when they make suggestions or complaints, and they influence it indirectly when they quit the organization because they don't like something about it.

Organizations have an infinite number of options available in regards to their culture. However, options are of no value unless we have the interest in discussing them, and the courage to experiment with them.

A group of people who don't take control of their culture will end up with culture that drifts around through time, but it will not drift aimlessly. It will drift according to the personalities of the people in the organization. Furthermore, the people in leadership positions have the most influence over culture, even if they make no attempt to influence it. In other documents I have described this concept in such ways as: an organization is a reflection of the minds of its members.

A group of people with high quality minds will produce an organization with a more pleasant, more efficient culture even if they don't make any attempt to do so. The reason is because our culture evolves to fit our personalities, so if a group of people are well behaved, responsible, and considerate, their culture will develop to fit those desirable traits.

At the other extreme, if an organization is dominated by people who resist critical analysis of themselves, or who resist experimentation with their culture, or who are stupid, ignorant, dishonest, violent, sexually disturbed, apathetic, or paranoid, their culture will evolve to fit their bizarre personalities. The end result will be that their organization will be noticeably more inefficient, chaotic, bizarre, and unpleasant.

The concept that culture evolves to fit the minds of the people, and that the leaders have the most influence over it, is most obvious with small organizations with submissive members, such as families.

Every family has a unique culture that provides a unique environment for the members of the family. The culture of a family develops to fit the genetic characteristics and education of the people in the family. For some obvious examples:

• A family that has a member suffering from Prader-Willi syndrome will create a culture in which food is under strict control by the parents, and the child with that genetic disorder has to follow rules that other families do not have.

• Years ago Joseph Fritzl provided an example of how a parents can create a truly bizarre family environment. If you want a new example, in October 2017 the brother of the Hollywood celebrity Kevin Spacey claimed that his father, Thomas Fowler, would rape and abuse the children, and that their mother was also neurotic and abusive.

The Fritzl and Fowler families are examples of organizations that are dominated by people with seriously defective minds. The culture of those two families evolved to fit the mental characteristics of the parents, resulting in culture that was extremely unpleasant.

At the other extreme would be a family dominated by a man and woman who have such high quality minds and educations that they are capable of looking critically at themselves, having discussions about social issues, and experimenting with changes. Their family would end up with more appropriate rules, social activities, clothing styles, work schedules, and attitudes. They would provide a more pleasant environment for themselves and their children. Furthermore, their family environment would slowly improve through the years as a result of the parents occasionally experimenting with changes.

Because humans are arrogant, we have a tendency to blame our problems on other people or mysterious forces, but each of us is responsible for our behavior, and the members of an organization are responsible for the environment of their organization. We cannot blame other people for our bad behavior, and we cannot blame people outside of our organization for the problems of the organization.

Every family has a unique culture because every family consists of people with slightly different genetic mental qualities, and each member picked up slightly different information during his life.

Some families get into fistfights with each other on a regular basis, and others have lots of verbal arguments. Some families have homes that are neat, and others have homes that are cluttered with toys or litter. Some families spend a lot of their leisure time eating excessively, whereas others spend a lot of time watching television, playing video games, riding motorcycles on dirt fields, or reading the Bible, Koran, or Torah.

Since the culture of a family evolves to fit the minds of the members, we can get an indication of what type of genetic qualities and education you and your family members have by observing how you behave and treat one another.

The entertainment businesses are another example of how the culture of an organization evolves to fit the minds of the people in the organization.

During the past few months, a lot men and women have found the courage to publicly complain about the rapes and crude behavior of people in those businesses. If the people in the entertainment businesses were "typical" humans, then all businesses, sports groups, orchestras, and other organizations would have virtually the same complaints about rape and abuse, but these problems are not equally distributed among the organizations. Some organizations have much more problems with rape, and other organizations have more problems with pedophilia, alcoholism, murders, gambling, or drug abuse. Sports groups have lots of problems with steroid abuse.

The reason different organizations have different culture, problems, and behavior is because every person has unique genetic characteristics and a unique education, and organizations are not random selections of the human population. If we could remove the secrecy that we are providing everybody, and if we could truly understand the human mind and our DNA, an analysis of the organizations would show us that there are significant genetic differences between the people in different organizations.

An obvious example of how organizations have genetically different people are the sports groups. They consist of people who have unusually healthy bodies, and who also have a mind that has a very strong craving to win competitive battles.

As I have mentioned in other documents, I think the entertainment businesses are attracting people who are perpetually unhappy due to some serious genetic mental disorder. I also think that the entertainment business is attracting a lot of ugly and crude men who cannot attract desirable women, and they want to get into Hollywood so that they can have contact with women that they would otherwise never be able to meet.

When those low quality people get into leadership positions of the entertainment businesses, they gain a lot of influence over the culture of those businesses, and they will also be able to determine who gets hired or fired. Since we have a tendency to hire people who are similar to ourselves, after many years, the entertainment businesses become dominated by people with significant mental problems. This would explain why there are so many people complaining about rapes, murders, threats, and crude behavior in the entertainment businesses.

In February 2018, Uma Thurman found the courage to discuss her unpleasant experiences with Hollywood directors, and she describes an incident in which she believes that Quentin Tarantino tried to set her up to die in a car accident. She survived the accident, but she ended up with permanent damage to her neck and knees.

Update 14 Feb 2018: A man who notified me of some typos also provided links to some interesting information about Tarantino, such as his explanation for performing some choking scenes rather than letting actors or stuntmen do it, and why he spit in the face of Uma Thurman rather than using simulated spit. A hollywood director is likely to justify such abusive behavior on the grounds that he is trying to create realistic scenes, but we need to pass judgment on when we truly benefit from such realism, and when the director is either getting carried away with realism, or simply justifying his abusive behavior. Imagine a more extreme example. Imagine a Hollywood director is creating a movie in which there are scenes of pedophiles raping children, and the director actually rapes the child actors because he says he wants their crying and screaming to be realistic. How many children would he have to rape before you came to the conclusion that we don't benefit from that type of realism, and that he is raping the children because he wants to do it. Can you control your craving to behave like a submissive animal when you encounter a person who is higher in the social hierarchy? If so, do it, and encourage other people to do it, also.

Dirk Benedict, an actor, said that there were "hundreds of murders" in Hollywood. The video has been removed from the Internet, but I saved that section of the audio.

Dirk-Benedict-Hollywood-murders.mp3 only 240 kb The first person to speak is Jermaine Jackson, the brother of Michael Jackson. Then Dirk Benedict responds.

Every organization has an infinite number of cultural options, but the human race is not yet accustomed to the concept that we can take control of our culture and determine what our future will be. Instead, we are still behaving like primitive savages who are oblivious to this issue and allow our culture to drift about aimlessly. This is resulting in businesses that have work environments that have some unpleasant qualities.

For example, in my document about murder rituals, I wrote about two businesses that require female employees to wear high-heeled shoes. The people who created those rules were obviously not interested in doing research into what type of shoes would be most comfortable and practical for a woman who has to walk or stand for many hours a day on the particular flooring of their particular business.

Rather, they were more concerned with something else, such as mimicking the customs of similar businesses, or because they thought those shoes would increase sales by attracting more male customers.

The management of those two businesses seem typical of the people who rise to the top positions of businesses around the world. Specifically, most successful business executives seem more concerned with mimicking other people or making profit than they are in creating a business environment that is pleasant for their employees, or in creating a business that contributes something of value for society.

The free enterprise system is crude, and we should advance beyond it. Businesses should be serving us; we should not be serving them. We should enjoy going to our jobs, and we should be proud of the work we do because we should be doing work that is beneficial to society. We should not be working at jobs in which we try to deceive, manipulate, cheat, and abuse one another.

Female employees should not be told to dress like sex toys in order to attract male consumers. That is treating women like a piece of bait on a hook, and it is treating male customers as fish. We would create a more pleasant environment for ourselves if businesses treated us as friends rather than as potential sources of profit. Human life should have first priority in our economy, not profit or sales.

In order to change our priorities and put human life ahead of profit, we must develop a better economic system. Nothing will improve as long as we continue to follow the path that we are on right now. However, developing a better economic system requires that we provide ourselves with leaders who have the courage, ability, and desire to experiment with a new economic system and new culture.

An organization is not going to improve if it is dominated by people who are afraid to experiment with their culture, or if the people are too ignorant, stupid, or incompetent to experiment.

In order for an organization to improve itself, it requires members, especially leaders, who can conduct critical analysis of themselves and their culture, discuss issues, compromise on policies, and experiment with changes. It requires leaders who can work with and inspire people rather than fight and suppress competitors.

What type of social environment has Google created for its members? I don't have any firsthand knowledge of what their culture is, but judging by the remarks and descriptions of Google that have come out as a result of the firing of James Damore, it seems to me that the Google management should be described as abusive, dictatorial, neurotic, and unacceptable. In this article, for example, Google managers are accused of making blacklists of "conservative" and "white" employees.

Near the end of January, this news article reported that Damore was having trouble finding employment. Is it because he has been blacklisted? Is it because there are lots of other companies who are secretly conspiring with Google to discriminate against conservative white people?

The descriptions of the Google social environment remind me of the descriptions of life in communist China and Russia, and of life in North Korea today. The Google management seems to be treating employees in a manner that is similar to how the communist dictators treated their citizens. For example, the employees of Google seem to be as frightened to disagree with their leaders as the citizens of communist nations, and rather than encourage critical analyses, discussions, and experimentation, the Google executives seem to be demanding blind obedience.

The USA provides the Google employees with freedom of speech, but they seem to be too intimidated to use it. They seem to be under pressure to worship their leaders and their company's culture, just like the North Koreans. It makes me wonder, how abusive can the Google management become before the employees complain about the management? What if the CEO were to demand that the employees refer to him as "Dear Leader"? Would the Google employees submit to that?

This article from the Federalist claims that some of the Google employees were encouraging hatred of Nazis, and even providing advice on how to properly punch a Nazi.

The people who get their information from Jewish sources have been convinced that a Nazi is an evil creature that should be arrested or killed, but after I learned more about the Nazis, the world wars, and the Holocaust, I have come to the conclusion that the Nazi party was a fraud created and/or manipulated by Jews.

For example, the Nazi philosophy supposedly came from Alfred Rosenberg, who I suspect was a Khazarian Jew, not a German or a Russian. Regardless of what race he was, the Nazi philosophy was not created by Adolf Hitler or the German people.

The neo-Nazi parties of today are even more fraudulent, as I have described in other documents, such as this.

I think the Jews were using the Nazi movement to create anger and fear of Germans, instigate a war, and drive Jews from Europe and down to Palestine so that they would help with the creation of Israel. (I have some information here if you are unaware of how the world wars were intended to create Israel.)

The Americans and Europeans were tricked into the world wars, and even though many decades have passed, most Americans and Europeans are still allowing the Jews to promote anti-Nazi propaganda and collect Holocaust payments.

The Google management did not fire the employees who were passing around the messages about how to punch Nazis. Police and military personnel often have to use violence, but most organizations have no justification for encouraging hatred or violence among their members. Businesses should fire the violent employees, not the employees who discuss issues in a peaceful manner.

I would describe the environment of Google to be disgusting, obnoxious, and crude. I would say that it is equivalent to allowing employees to promote such concepts as, How to punch an asshole. Incidentally, the Nazi groups are infiltrated by Jews who are manipulating their members, so the Nazis are foolish puppets also.

The messages that encourage the punching of Nazis are similar to the propaganda posters of North Korea that encouraged the hatred of Americans. In the propaganda poster to the right, American soldiers are pounding a nail into the head of a North Korean woman. The North Korean leaders promote that propaganda in order to incite hatred of Americans. The North Korean people should be disgusted that they are being deceived by their government. What is the difference between the North Korean leaders inciting hatred of the USA, and the Google management allowing employees to incite hatred of Nazis, or hatred of James Damore, or hatred of other people who disagree with their particular opinions? I would respond that the Google management is just as disgusting as the North Korean government.

When a government encourages its citizens to hate other nations, they are hurting themselves and the world because nothing is going to improve from hatred. Something improves when we critically analyze it, discuss the issue, and experiment with changes.

Likewise, when the management of a business encourages their employees to hate and punch the people that they disagree with, they are hurting themselves and society. The business will not improve itself, or society, by encouraging fistfights or hatred.

Ideally, we would set standards for management so high that the only people in leadership positions were those who were encouraging discussions, compromise, research, friendship, cooperation, teamwork, and experiments. Ideally, all of the people in leadership positions would be trying to reduce fights, not encourage them. Our leaders should be encouraging friendships and cooperation.

The only people who benefit from fights are people who are trying to take control of the group. For example, by encouraging the employees of Google to hate James Damore, the Google management can eliminate a competitor without anybody complaining, and the foolish employees will assist in helping the management remain in control of the company and suppress alternative opinions.

For another example of how violence can help a crime network, if a crime network can cause violence to become extreme, as it becomes during a war, they will be able to murder their opponents without anybody noticing because they will be able to disguise their murders as deaths as a result of the war. They can also steal items without people noticing.

Some people are promoting the philosophy that businesses, sports groups, and other organizations should be forced to follow quotas when hiring people in order to make the organizations more "diverse" and "fair". Many people also want to force our nation to accept refugees and immigrants almost at random.

These people believe that a stable organization can be created by a group of people that have been selected almost at random because they follow the philosophy that the human mind is like a piece of clay, and that it will adapt to whatever its environment is. These people don't worry about the compatibility of the members because they believe that people will automatically adapt to the organization and one another.

By comparison, I believe that human behavior is a combination of our genetic characteristics and our environment, and since we cannot change a person's genetic characteristics, in order to create a pleasant and stable organization, we need to give the organization the freedom to discriminate against who they want as a member. They also need the freedom to evict the members that they regard as misfits. This will allow every organization to select people who are compatible.

However, in order to make wise decisions, the organizations need access to information about other people's lives, and they must also be free to pass judgment on a person's behavior and mental qualities. Organizations cannot make wise decisions about who to bring into their organization if people are allowed to be secretive or deceptive.

Furthermore, we cannot expect an organizations to deal properly with these issues if we promote the attitude that it is cruel or unfair for people to pass judgment on one another.

The people who whine about being judged should be told to shut up.

In order to allow organizations to make wise decisions about their membership, we must eliminate secrecy so that we can do a good job of judging one other, and we must put an end to the attitude that passing judgment on people is cruel or detrimental.

Every organization should routinely pass judgment on which of their members are behaving inappropriately, and whether those employees need to be restricted, evicted, given a different job within the organization, or provided with more training.

Business leaders regularly pass judgment on whether their employees are behaving properly, but nobody is yet applying this concept to the people in leadership positions. Our leaders are free to do whatever they please without any consequences. This attitude must be eliminated in order for us to improve our world. The people in leadership positions need to be given job performance reviews on a regular basis just like everybody else.

The Google management passes judgment on which of their employees is promoting the proper opinions and behaving correctly, but the Google employees are frightened to pass judgment on the behavior of their managers. This ridiculous situation must change. We must be allowed to pass judgment on our leaders. We must advance beyond the medieval attitude that peasants should worship their Kings.

Unfortunately, there is no answer book to life to tell an organization who they should accept into their organization, or to tell an organization how to determine which of their members is behaving inappropriately, and what to do about the badly behaved members.

For example, when a male employee seems to deliberately bump into a female employee, should the management reprimand that man? Or should he be fired? Or should he be moved to a department where he works only with men? Or should he be given some type of counseling? Or should he be sent to some other business where there are no female employees? Or should he be evicted from the city?

The management of every organization is on its own to figure out how to deal with such issues. The end result is that every organization makes slightly different decisions about who among us is disruptive, and what to do about it.

The Google executives have apparently come to the conclusion that the people who are behaving inappropriately are those who oppose "diversity", and those who are racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, xenophobic, extremist, bigoted, chauvinistic, prejudiced, narrow-minded, one-sided, homophobic, and lots of other adjectives that I would describe as vague and meaningless. Those adjectives are not serious, scientific descriptions of human attitudes. Rather, they are insults, similar to calling somebody a doo-doo head, smegma breath, or butt hole.

My recommendation is to regard people who use those adjectives as "insulting" us, not "expressing their opinions" about us, or "passing judgment" on us.

Furthermore, I suggest we raise standards for people in leadership positions to the point at which people are regarded as intellectually unacceptable for leadership when they use those adjectives. Our leaders should provide sensible reviews of our job performance. We should not tolerate leaders who accuse us of being anti-diversity, a Nazi, or a butt-hole.

One of the problems with allowing leaders to fire, reprimand, punish, or criticize people for being anti-diversity, extremist, bigoted, or prejudiced is that it intimidates the employees; it creates fear among them. The reason is because those adjectives are so vague that they can be applied to anybody, and that causes every employee to wonder if somebody is going to accuse them of being one of those adjectives. There is no way you can defend yourself against accusations of being homophobic, narrow minded, extremist, or racist. You cannot prove you are not an "extremist" when nobody can adequately explain what an "extremist" is.

By comparison, when an employee is fired or reprimanded for an understandable reason, such as when he steals something from the business, or when he routinely fails to complete his tasks properly, the other employees will understand why he is being fired or reprimanded. They will not be in fear of somebody accusing them of the same problem.

James Damore was fired simply for expressing an opinion that the Google management disagreed with. However, the management did not show any evidence that Damore was disruptive to the organization, or to society. Damore could argue that he was beneficial to the organization because he was encouraging discussions, research, and a diversity of opinions.

When a manager is allowed to fire an employee without a sensible explanation, it is likely to cause the other employees to become worried that they might be fired for no sensible reason, also. It will cause them to regard their manager as a lunatic rather than a leader. It will create a miserable work environment.

Many of the Google employees are more educated and intelligent than the average person, so I had initially expected many of the employees to point out that the firing of James Damore is irrational, undesirable, and destructive, and most important of all, unacceptable. I expected them to do something to improve the situation, such as force the management to re-hire Damore, or to force the management to resign.

However, instead of inspiring the world by standing up to the abusive Google executives, I was surprised to find that they had chosen to remain silent, or submissively support the management. Instead of impressing me with their intelligence and independence, they shocked me with behavior that resembles inanimate puppets that are prancing around on a stage.

Perhaps a lot of the Google employees are submissive because they are in the USA on an H1B visa, and are worried about being deported. Or perhaps a lot of the Google employees are typical, apathetic sheeple who don't care about being abused. Regardless of why they are so submissive, it makes me wonder about such issues as:

• How abusive can the Google management be before the employees complain about the abuse?

• Google has lots of employees who are far above average intelligence and education, and since people with such intelligence and education are allowing an employee to be fired for what is essentially being insulted as a "butt hole", how abusive could the management be if the employees were only of average intelligence, or below-average? Would the Google offices resemble the factories of the 1800s in which the employees were treated only slightly better than the animals?

•When we discover a person behaving in a manner that we regard as abusive or dishonest, we should not assume that we caught him doing the only abusive act in his entire life. It is best to assume that he is regularly behaving in that manner.

Therefore, rather than assume the firing of Damore is the only time Google executives behaved in an atrocious manner, we should wonder if they have been abusive to other people, also. For example, are any of the Google executives involved with the criminals who conducted the 9/11 attack? Are any involved with a pedophile network?

Another issue that every organization must deal with is compatibility. An organization will be more pleasant when the members are so compatible that they enjoy one another, and are capable of working together as a team. At the other extreme are organizations in which the people dislike one another, in which case they work together only out of obligation or necessity.

The only sensible way of forming a compatible team is to eliminate secrecy so that the management can choose people who will be compatible with one another. And then the management needs to regularly review the members of the team so that they can identify and deal with the people who are reducing morale or disrupting the team.

However, my philosophy contradicts that of the Google management and many other people who promote the attitude that businesses can hire people almost at random, and hire people according to quotas, and then force all of the employees to be compatible through punishments, threats, rehabilitation programs, and ridicule.

Most people follow the philosophy that human behavior can be controlled through rewards, punishments, and psychological programs. This is why every nation is trying to stop shoplifting, murder, litter, and other bad behavior with those techniques.

No society has yet been willing to accept the possibility that this philosophy is a failure. An interesting example that is happening as of February 2018 is that some states in the USA have legalized marijuana, but Jeff Sessions, the Attorney General for President Trump, is supposedly trying to find a way to force those states to make it illegal. He believes that by making it illegal, he will be able to stop people from using marijuana. He is an example of how "conservatives" are unable to look critically at themselves or their policies, or experiment with changes.

President Trump doesn't seem to be as afraid of changes as Jeff Sessions, but even Trump wants to follow some of the existing drug policies rather than experiment with changes. For example, in October 2017, the White House posted this document on their website in which President Trump announced a public health emergency. The document refers to the abuse of opium-like substances as an "opioid epidemic," as if drug abuse is caused by a living creature that is spreading from one person to the next. In reality, none of us need to worry about that epidemic getting into our city and infecting us. Trump will not protect us from that epidemic, either. He is just wasting his time and our tax money on a policy that has been failing for every nation that implements it.

The Google executives also promote the popular attitude that human minds are like pieces of clay, and that they can manipulate our opinions by rewarding, firing, punishing, blacklisting, and ridiculing us.

They also believe that they can change our attitudes towards life with psychological training programs. This article claims that "employees are required to go through training for ethnic, racial, and sexual diversity." What kind of training programs are they? Are they truly sensible? Or are they more similar to the rehabilitation programs of the communists, or in the movie 1984?

The Google executives are trying to force their employees to believe in and support "diversity", even though they don't have a clear explanation of what diversity is, or who benefits from it. For example, the Google executives cannot explain how many women, people of other races, midgets, dwarves, homosexuals, transgenders, and people with cleft palates an organization needs before they can claim to be "diverse".

Furthermore, Google executives cannot explain whether it is acceptable for certain departments within a business to be primarily women, and other departments to be primarily men, or primarily midgets, or primarily elderly people. Should every department have the same diversity? Or is it acceptable for some departments within a business to be more homogeneous?

Who is going to suffer if some businesses, or departments within a business, have lots of midgets, and others have none? Who is going to suffer if one business or department is dominated by men, and another is dominated by women? Will children, or society, be harmed if daycare centers are restricted to women only?

What about sports groups; should they be forced to be more diverse, also? The basketball teams, for example, are discriminating against short people and non-athletic people, and they are dominated by black men. Should we force them to accept short people, women, midgets, handicapped people, cripples, elderly people, and blind people?

How do any of us benefit by forcing organizations to be a random mixture of people? Why should diversity be enforced when nobody can explain what it is, who benefits from it, or who suffers from a lack of it?

Why do the Google executives enforce a policy of diversity when nobody can explain what diversity is or how we benefit from it? I do not think it is because the Google executives truly believe that they are helping our society, or helping their organization, or improving the lives of their employees. I think it is because they are secretly working with the Jewish crime network, and they are imposing this policy in order to break down our society.

Can Google truly claim to be promoting diversity when they fire people who disagree with them? I would respond that a company has more diversity when they have members who are encouraged to be creative, discuss issues, and have different opinions. By firing people who disagree with them, Google is creating a stagnant, monotonous, homogeneous group of frightened and submissive puppets, not a diverse group of humans. I would say Google is practicing the same disgusting policies as the communists in Russia a few decades ago, which is to suppress creativity and independence, and create a horde of submissive, intimidated, and frightened slaves who follow orders with no concern for the effect they have on their own life, or the lives of other people.

Google is not encouraging creativity, experimentation, discussions, critical analyses, or suggestions for improvement.

Google is not creating a team of humans who enjoy one another, work together for the benefit of the group, or inspire other teams.

Rather, Google is pressuring their employees into behaving like puppets, medieval peasants, sheep, or barnyard animals.

Imagine if the Google executives did not approve of garlic, pizza, pork, or tofu, and imagine that any employee who ate those foods was fired, and then blacklisted. Would any of the Google employees care? Would any of them complain? Or would they be silent, obedient sheep who changed their diet and conformed to the idiotic rules?

What is the difference between firing an employee who has a difference of opinion about the genetic characteristics of men and women, and firing an employee for eating garlic, pizza, pork, or tofu? In either case, the organization is getting rid of any person with independence and creativity, and leaving behind a group of submissive puppets who will allow themselves to be abused.

In order for a group of people to form an organization, they need a hierarchy, and they need rules to follow, and they need some type of law enforcement system to deal with the people who refuse to follow the rules.

I am not criticizing Google for setting rules for the employees to follow, or for firing employees who violate the rules. Every organization must set rules, and they must remove or restrict the members who will not follow the rules.

My complaint about Google is that they are imposing rules that I regard as abusive and irrational. Actually, as I mentioned earlier, I would go even further and describe their rules as a deliberate, diabolical plot to break down our society. I suspect the Google executives are members of an international Jewish crime network, and they are trying to encourage fights between men and women, and between different races. I think they are imposing "diversity" in order to break down our friendships.

When people are randomly mixed together, it is difficult for us to form friendships and marriages. Diversity even makes it difficult for employees to have lunch together because some people will refuse to eat pork; some people will be speaking a language that the other employees do not understand; some people will want food with high levels of capsaicin; some people will want to pray to some god before eating while others pray to a different god; and some people will want various types of vegetarian meals.

When people are forced to mix together at random, it results in a lot of awkwardness, loneliness, resentment, arguments, bitterness, and anger. And I think that is what the Google executives want; specifically, they are encouraging diversity in order to destroy our society so that their Jewish crime network can get control of us. I regard the Google management as crime network members, not as business executives.

The diversity programs that the Google executives put their employees through remind me of the way the Romper Room television program created the "Do Bees" to influence the behavior of children. The Do Bee concept was based on the attitude that children will improve their behavior through psychological programs.

That concept is accurate to a certain extent because young children are extremely submissive, and they have a natural tendency to mimic adults. Therefore, when children are among well behaved adults who are encouraging good behavior, some of the children are likely to pick up the good habits of the adults.

The "Do Bee" program encouraged sensible behavior, such as encouraging children to clean up after themselves and control their temper. That program may have inspired some children to exert some self-control and become more polite and responsible.

The Google executives are treating the adult employees in a similar manner as Romper Room treated four-year-old children. The Google executives have created what we could describe as a "Google Do Bee psychological program" that is intended to alter the opinions and attitudes of the employees.

However, whereas the Romper Room Do Bee program was intended to encourage appropriate behavior from children, the Google Do Bee program encourages the employees to turn off their creativity and curiosity, and behave like submissive, mindless puppets. Actually, the Google Do Bee program is worse than that because it is encouraging fights and hatred. For some examples: • The program promotes the concept that some of us are benefiting from "white male privilege", and that we should have that privilege taken away so that we are treated equally. • The program claims that genetics has so little influence over human behavior, and over the differences between men and women, that people who express such a belief should be regarded as detrimental to the organization, and they should be fired and blacklisted. • The program encourages employees to hate and fight with "Nazis". The employees who believe the Google Do Bee program are fools. They are not helping to protect the world from Nazis, and they are not helping to make people more equal by opposing "white male privilege", and they are not improving life for women simply by denying the genetic differences between males and females.

The article from the Federalist has a quote from a Google employee about how Google needs to work with other businesses to ensure that the undesirable people, such as James Damore, have trouble getting jobs. In case it did not occur to you, a blacklist has no value unless other businesses are willing to secretly join in on the discrimination of the people on the list. This ought to make you wonder, if Google has created a blacklist, they are likely to have found other businesses to secretly discriminate against the people on the list. Which other businesses are working with Google? And are they also compiling their own blacklists, and sharing them with other businesses?

Imagine if every business in the US, Europe, and Japan were to cooperate with Google and secretly use the blacklists. It would result in certain people having a very difficult time getting jobs, but those people would never realize that they were blacklisted because the businesses would be doing it secretly.

If a group of businesses were to discriminate against Jews, most Jews would have a temper tantrum. However, when conservative white men are discriminated against by Jews and Indians at Google, most white conservative men remain silent and submissive, like stupid sheep. They are as silent about the discrimination by Google as they are about the lies about the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, the world wars, and the Apollo moon landings.

As I have pointed out in other documents, the conservatives have lots of guns, and they frequently boast about their bravery and courage, but they are not brave or courageous. They have guns because they are frightened, not because they are willing to use them. The conservatives are like sheep that follow one another. They are not explorers, and they are easily intimidated, manipulated, and abused.

If it is acceptable for the Google executives to discriminate against conservative white men, then it is acceptable for the rest of us to discriminate against Jews, people from India, vegetarians, Catholics, or whoever we don't like. Conversely, if it is wrong for you and me to discriminate against people we don't like, then it should be wrong for Google executives to discriminate.

Imagine if every business in the world were to behave like Google. Imagine every business creating blacklists of people that they don't like, and firing people who have a difference of opinion. Would you want to live in that type of world?

If every business were to behave like the Google executives, the world would become worse, not better. Therefore, we should classify the Google executives as unacceptable as leaders. They are not inspiring productive behavior. Rather, they are behaving like arrogant, selfish, abusive, communist dictators.

Google has created "diversity programs" to provide employees with a more appropriate attitude towards life. I have no idea what happens at these programs, but James Damore said that after he attended one of them, he found it to be "secretive" and "shameful".

Businesses are doing their employees a favor by providing them with educational programs because the programs can help the employees become better at their jobs, or do their jobs more safely, or learn skills to allow them to do other jobs.

A business could even go further and provide educational programs to help their employees deal with marital problems and home maintenance. A business could also offer some health programs to teach their employees about the dangers of hitting their head while playing sports, and to provide information about cooking, food, and nutrition.

Educational programs are valuable, but the dilemma that every organization faces is that there is no answer book to tell us what is a useful educational program, and what is nonsense. The end result is that every organization comes to a slightly different conclusion on what a proper education is.

For example, when a group of religious fanatics create an organization, they promote the attitude that a proper education comes from studying the Bible, Koran, or some other religious document. When a group of vegetarians creates an organization, they regard a proper education as one in which the eating of meat is regarded as disgusting and unacceptable.

Google has created diversity programs to "educate" their employees, but it is a personal opinion as to whether the people who "graduate" from those courses are more educated than the rest of us. My opinion is that the people who believe what those programs are teaching should be regarded as fools who have picked up propaganda. I would be embarrassed to have a diploma from one of those Google courses, not proud of myself.

A similar issue, or we could describe it as the same issue expressed in different words, is that the management of an organization should be actively involved in suppressing nonsensical, destructive, and stupid opinions.

For an obvious example, consider the ignorant but arrogant employees who think they know a lot about a particular subject, but who give advice to other employees that is technically incorrect or potentially dangerous. The management of an organization needs to watch over the employees and ensure that all of them are promoting opinions that are sensible, safe, and productive. The management needs to suppress idiotic, foolish, and dangerous opinions.

All business executives and military leaders seem to be aware of this concept, and they are applying it on a regular basis, but no government is applying this concept. Governments around the world are allowing their citizens to promote all sorts of nonsense without any consequences. We justify this as providing the people with freedom. However, our governments should make better decisions about when we are providing people with "freedom", and when we are providing them with the opportunity to abuse, deceive, harm, or manipulate other people.

For example, during the 1800s, American businesses had the freedom to put morphine into their pharmaceutical products. Eventually many people came to the conclusion that this freedom was harmful to society, not beneficial, because it was allowing incompetent and abusive people to produce useless and dangerous drugs, and to cause people to become addicted to their products.

I suggest that our government go much further than restricting the use of morphine. For example, why should we have the freedom to sell or promote astrology? Where is the evidence that astrology is helping to improve our society, or helping anybody's life or relationship?

I think that allowing people to have the freedom to promote astrology is allowing people to make a living by deceiving and abusing one another. It also encourages people to believe whatever they regard as entertaining rather than look for scientific evidence to support their beliefs.

Furthermore, women seem to be much more interested in astrology than men, and that reinforces the attitude that women are intellectually inferior to men. The Google executives are promoting the attitude that we can improve the image of women by participating in their diversity programs, and by firing and tormenting the men who claim women are genetically less intelligent, but that is not going to improve the image of women. Women are going to be regarded as intellectually inferior as long as they continue to promote stupid opinions, such as astrology.

Every person is responsible for his image, and every group of people is responsible for the image of their group. Organizations and individuals with unpleasant images frequently blame other people for their bad image, but they are responsible for their image.

For thousands of years women have been regarded as intellectually inferior simply because all throughout history they have repeatedly demonstrated intellectual inferiority. Women are responsible for their reputation of being less intelligent, not men. If women want to be regarded as having the same intelligence as men, then they must start making remarks that are equally intelligent.

Rather than pretend that men and women are a unisex creature, I think we would do more to improve relationships between men and women by developing a better economic system because our current system is allowing people to make a living by exploiting and abusing one another.

Allowing people to promote astrology is encouraging people to waste their time on useless activities, and encouraging other people to believe in nonsense and look like idiots. Astrology is not helping any of us. It would be better if everybody was contributing something of value to society, and if everybody was encouraged to base their opinions on scientific facts.

However, getting rid of astrology requires providing ourselves with government officials who have the emotional ability to tell the people who believe in astrology that they are intellectually inferior to those of us who regard astrology as nonsense, and they should accept the opinions that are based on scientific facts, even if they don't understand or like those opinions.

Furthermore, this concept should be applied to other nonsensical beliefs. For example, we have almost no restrictions on the type of religion people can create, or the amount of money they can collect from their religion. I don't think society benefits from that type of freedom, either, which is why I have been suggesting that religion be restricted to personal beliefs rather than organizations.

To summarize the concept of this section, the leaders of every organization should regularly watch over their members and suppress the people and opinions that are dangerous, idiotic, or nonsensical. The leaders should ensure that the people are encouraging productive, respectable behavior and attitudes.

The managers in businesses will regularly pass judgment on which of their employees has the intellectual and emotional ability for certain jobs, and we should provide ourselves with a government that follows that same policy.

Our government officials should be passing judgment on which citizens are unfit for leadership positions, unfit for voting, and unfit for certain types of jobs, such as policeman, teacher, and doctor. The government officials should not be afraid to tell a person that he is unsuitable as a voter, dentist, or business leader.

Everybody claims to support free speech, but we also want to prohibit slander and false information. Organizations benefit tremendously when they suppress false and destructive opinions. The dilemma that all organizations face is that there is no answer book in life to tell us which opinions are false or destructive. Therefore, it is up to the people in every organization, especially the leaders, to figure out for themselves which opinions to suppress.

Obviously, different groups of people are going to come to very different conclusions. For a few simple examples:

• The religious fanatics come to the conclusion that everybody who disagrees with their particular opinions on religion is promoting false and destructive opinions.

• The vegetarians regard everybody who eats meat as promoting a cruel or idiotic opinion.

• The Jews whine that the people who discuss the Holocaust, the 9/11 attack, and other events are spewing hatred, Holocaust denial, anti-Semitism, and idiotic conspiracy theories.

• The people who believe in astrology claim that the critics of astrology are spewing nonsense and false information.

I am not complaining that the Google management fired an employee for promoting a detrimental opinion. My complaints about the Google management is that they are making absurd decisions on which opinions are beneficial and which are detrimental.

However, I do not think the Google management is making those stupid decisions by mistake, or because of a mental disorder. I believe that they are deliberately trying to suppress certain people and opinions because they are trying to break down our nation in order to help an international Jewish crime network get control of us.

I think the Google executives are behaving just like the Jews who are trying to stop us from investigating the Holocaust and the 9/11 attack. The Jews claim to be suppressing discussions about those issues in order to protect us from crazy conspiracy theories or anti-Semitism, but they are trying to suppress investigations because they don't want us to discover that they have been lying to us, instigating wars, abusing us, murdering us, kidnapping us, and cheating us.

My interpretation of the movie "They Live" is that it is exposing the Jewish crime network's attempt to take control of our world. In that movie, aliens from another planet, which represent the Zionist Jews from the Khazarian area of Russia, get into leadership positions of our media, government, businesses, and other organizations, and they fool many of the humans into joining them in what they claim will be the creation of a better world for everybody.

The aliens treat the humans as animals. The humans are encouraged to behave like mindless puppets who obey authority without question, and who never think for themselves.

The image to the right shows what the television looks like to somebody who can see the aliens for what they really are; namely, an ugly race of creatures who are promoting mindless obedience.

The image below shows what the city's signs and advertisements look like when somebody is capable of seeing through the propaganda.

In other documents I pointed out that thousands of people throughout history have been demanding and fighting for freedom, liberation, and other words that they don't have a good understanding of. The Google executives are another example of how people are using words that they don't have an understanding of. Google boasts that they are promoting diversity, equality, fairness, and lots of other wonderful concepts, and they claim to be stopping hatred, bigotry, sexism, and other terrible concepts. However, I would describe the Google executives as behaving just like the deceptive, diabolical aliens in They Live. They are encouraging people to be mindless slaves who never think for themselves, and who allow themselves to be treated like animals.

The lawsuit that James Damore has filed is showing evidence that Google does not discriminate against black people, Mexicans, Chinese, or people from India. Rather, the Google management is discriminating against what they are referring to as "conservative white men". In addition to encouraging the blacklisting and discrimination of "conservative white men", the article from the Federalist shows that some Google employees were complaining about "toxic whiteness", and "white fragility".

What is a "conservative white man"? The firing and hatred of James Damore shows that a conservative white man is a Caucasian man who believes that there are genetic differences in the intellectual abilities of men and women.

The angry messages about "white privilege", Nazis, and "toxic whiteness" that the Google employees are allowed to pass around, are more evidence that the Google management are discriminating against Caucasians.

Incidentally, in case you have not noticed, Google members are not the only people promoting the concept that the Caucasians within the USA and Europe are suffering from "toxic whiteness". For example, in this article, the author claims to offer first-hand insight into ways to "dismantle toxic whiteness". In this British media article, we learn about a feminist who is offering a course in "healing from toxic whiteness". The University of Wisconsin-Madison offered a course called "The Problem of Whiteness". Search the Internet for "toxic whiteness" and you will find thousands of complaints about us.

If you are a Caucasian, imagine yourself emigrating to India. Imagine yourself getting involved with the Jewish crime network in India, getting control of a business in India, and then discriminating against and blacklisting the "conservative brown men". Imagine yourself complaining about "toxic brownness", and "brown fragility". Imagine yourself starting courses at universities in India to help the Indian people "dismantle their toxic browness". Imagine yourself complaining that there is a "brown male privilege" in the workplaces in India.

Do you think the people in India would appreciate your complaints about "toxic brownness", or your suggestions that businesses in India discriminate against and blacklist the "conservative brown men"?

Or imagine yourself emigrating to an African nation, and then complaining about the "toxic blackness", or that African men have a "black male privilege".

Or imagine yourself getting involved with a company that is primarily women, and then complaining about the "toxic femaleness", or that women have a "female privilege".

The CEO of Google, Sundar Pichai, was born and raised in India, but he did not like his nation, and he did not want to work with other people in India to improve his nation. Rather, he wanted to abandon his friends, relatives, and neighbors, and live among Caucasians in the USA.

Instead of adapting to our culture, being grateful that we accepted him into our nation, becoming our friend, and contributing to our society, he apparently wants to spend his life hating us, discriminating against us, blacklisting us, and helping a group of Jewish criminals and pedophiles take control of our nation.

America is accepting immigrants who have no interest in joining our society or contributing to it. We are accepting people who want to escape from the police, or who simply want a job so that they can send money back home to their family, or who are willing to join a Jewish crime network and help to destroy our nation.

Imagine this happening on a smaller scale, such as a family. Imagine yourself generously offering to accept a homeless person into your home, but he shows no interest in becoming a member of your family. Rather, he treats you like you are animals, and he spends his time secretly working with criminals in your neighborhood to steal from you and get control of your family.

America has a lot of people from Africa, Mexico, Central America, and Asia who have a similar attitude as Sundar Pichai. Specifically, they do not want to live with their own people. They want to live with us Caucasians, but they don't want to be our friend, or join our culture. Just like Sundar Pichai, and just like rats, they want to live with us because they like the way we treat them. We are generous and pleasant. They also like our large supply of high-quality food; our cleaner, more attractive, and less crowded cities; and our higher level of material wealth.

They are coming into our nation to take advantage of us, not join our society. We are fools to accept that type of immigrant. We are allowing our nation to essentially fill up with human rats that want to exploit our generosity, material wealth, and pleasant personalities.

Barack and Michelle Obama, for example, have both made whiny complaints about Caucasians, but neither of them wants to emigrate to Africa and live among black people. They would rather live among Caucasians and whine about us. Why should we tolerate such behavior? People like that should be evicted.

A Caucasian business executive would not tolerate an employee who hated Caucasian people, discriminates against us, blacklists us, and works with crime networks to get control of the company. Nations should be just as intolerant of such disgusting immigrants.

I suspect that Sundar Pichai is working with the same Jewish crime network that gave us the 9/11 attack, the world wars, and lots of other appalling crimes. If I am correct, this brings up the interesting issue of why an Indian would want to join a Jewish crime network, and why a Jewish crime network would want to accept an Indian.

Crime networks are finicky about who they accept as members, and who they are willing to work with when they commit crimes. Crime networks want to be able to trust their members, so they look for people who have similar personalities.

If Pichai is working with the Jewish crime network, I suspect it is because the Jews regard him as being compatible enough to work with, to a certain extent. Although I don't know much about Pichai, the remarks that he has made, and the manner in which he treats his employees, gives me the impression that he does indeed have a personality that is similar to the criminal Jews.

My impression of the criminal Jews is that they have a crude, animal attitude. Animals do not regard the animals of neighboring groups as potential friends. Although some animals occasionally tolerate their neighbors, animals do not have an interest in cooperating with or socializing with other groups of animals. Rather, they have a strong craving to fight with their neighbors. They regard their neighbors as a nuisance, danger, or threat.

The arrogant remarks of superiority that I've heard from Jews, and their behavior, gives me the impression that many Jews, possibly all of them, have a more animal-like view of the world than those of us who are more genetically advanced. This would explain why they refer to us as "goyim" rather than as "people".

Those Jews do not regard you and me as potential friends. Rather, they regard Jews as the superior people, and they see us as inferior animals. Instead of forming friendships with us, they regard us as opportunities to make money, become famous, have sex with, and use as a stepping stone to achieve their goals.

Their attitude of superiority seems to be the reason they have no guilt about murdering, tormenting, torturing, and abusing us. For example, when Israel bombed the USS Liberty and sprayed napalm on the sailors, the Jews regarded that abusive act in a similar manner as we regard spraying poison on a nest of termites in our house.

Why would an intelligent, educated man in India want to join a group of criminal Jews who have that crude, animal attitude? The answer is that if that man from India has a similar attitude, then he will not regard those Jews as disgusting, crude, or animal-like. Rather, he will regard them as friends who have similar and compatible personalities.

Are you aware that a lot of people in India have an attitude of superiority, and regularly discriminate against one another? The English phrase for their behavior is that they have a "caste system".

We have a tendency to be polite with other cultures rather than criticize them, and so we have a tendency to treat the caste system as just a quirk of Indian culture, but we are not helping India when we treat their caste system as if it is as meaningless as a holiday celebration. We should be blunt and honest, and point out to them that it is a disgusting cultural practice, and it comes from animals, and the Indian people should advance beyond it.

The Indians might be following the caste system simply because they picked it up from their ancestors and, like most people, are afraid to experiment with something new, but it is also possible that the reason they have not abandoned it is because there are a lot of people in India who have a strong attitude of superiority, just like we see in the Jews and the animals, and they are attracted to the caste system.

Every nation has lots of crude people who behave like animals, and if we could read DNA, I would not be surprised to discover that a larger percentage of the Indian population is more genetically similar to animals compared to the people of Europe, Taiwan, and Japan.

The Indian people who are more similar to animals are going to be more arrogant, and more likely to think of themselves and their family members as superior people, and more likely to regard the rest of us as inferior creatures. That attitude of superiority would allow them to avoid guilt when they cheat, murder, rape, and abuse the people that they regard as inferior.

Sundar Pichai may be one of thousands of people in India who have such a crude personality that they can form a friendship with the Jewish crime network. That large number of crude people in India could also explain why there is so much cheating, bribery, disregard of laws, homelessness, and other problems in India.

This issue brings me to a concept that I mentioned in other documents. Specifically, in the world today, the people of every nation are encouraged to regard everybody in their nation as wonderful, and to regard people in other nations as inferior. A more beneficial attitude is to ignore national boundaries and judge people by their behavior.

The high-quality people in India have more in common with the high-quality people of Japan, Taiwan, and Belgium than they do with the crude people in India. Likewise, the crude people in the USA, Germany, and Russia have more in common with the crude people of India.

In other words, we should form friendships and judge people according to their behavior, not according to their nationality, citizenship, college diplomas, awards, monetary income, or race.

One trick the Jews use to keep people afraid of investigating and exposing the lies about the Holocaust is to occasionally arrest a "Holocaust Denier" who is under their control, and then arrange for a fraudulent trial in which he is sent to jail for a while, thereby causing people to become frightened that if they talk about the Holocaust, they will be arrested, and they will be sent to jail, also.

Is the lawsuit by James Damore a serious attempt to deal with the abuse he has suffered? Is his lawyer truly interested in winning the case? Or is this going to be a fraudulent lawsuit that is intended to fail in order to cause other employees to lose hope that they would be able to win such a discrimination lawsuit? Is this intended to fool people into remaining silent and obedient?

Damore chose a lawyer, Harmeet Dhillon, who is female, and of Indian descent. Does she have the same attitude of superiority that we see in Sundar Pichai? Does she also hate Caucasian men, and want to discriminate against us and blacklist us? Does she also believe in punching Nazis? Is she angry that Damore believes that there are genetic differences between the intellectual abilities of men and women?

Or is she disgusted by the behavior of Sundar Pichai and other crude men? Will she truly make an attempt to expose the abusive behavior of the Google executives?

It is too early for me to pass judgment on whether the lawsuit is going to be serious or fraudulent, but my advice is that we should not assume that Sundar Pichai is the only immigrant that we have allowed into our nation who has an animal's attitude, and who hates Caucasian men and wants to discriminate against us, or who was willing to join crime networks.

Actually, the USA has been boasting for centuries that it is providing a refuge for the huddled masses and wretched refuse. We have attracted a lot of crude immigrants from every nation.

Our immigration policy was created by people who believed it was a sensible policy. However, unless you are willing and emotionally able to look critically at American society, you are not going to understand our immigration policy. This section of my document will test your ability to control your arrogance, and to look critically at your nation and your ancestors.

As I mentioned in another document, when our school books discuss life during the 1600s and 1700s, they rarely mention any of the people living in the 13 colonies that eventually became the United States. Instead, the books talk mainly about how the Europeans, Japanese, and other people were involved with music, science, math, engineering, and art.

What were the American people doing while Mozart was creating music? What were the pilgrims doing while Leeuwenhoek was making microscopes? What were the Americans doing while James Watt was improving the steam engine?

There is almost no description of what the people in the 13 colonies were doing during the during the 1600s and 1700s because almost nobody in the 13 colonies did anything worthy of recording in a history book. Most of the people in the colonies during that era were idiots, mentally disturbed freaks, alcoholics, religious fanatics, and criminals. They didn't accomplish anything that is worth teaching to children.

While the Europeans, Japanese, and other people were developing math, music, artwork, and new inventions, the people in the 13 colonies were struggling to feed themselves, praying to Jesus, complaining about witches, and occasionally starving to death.

However, the 13 colonies get a lot of attention in our school books that discuss social problems, such as slavery and the burning of witches. There was slavery in Europe, also, but our books don't spend much time covering their slavery because it was on a much smaller, less appalling scale.

America was created by religious fanatics, prostitutes, unemployable misfits, alcoholics, idiots, and criminals. However, like all people, they were arrogant, and they did not want to look critically at themselves. They wanted to blame their problems on other people. They did not see themselves as genetically defective, inferior people.

From their point of view, they were wonderful people who were mistreated and abused by the cruel, English citizens and government. They had the attitude of a bratty child who whines about being bullied, unappreciated, and abused.

When they created the USA, they created laws that were based on their arrogant, "feel sorry for me" attitude, which is perhaps best expressed by the inscription on the Statue of Liberty, which boasts about offering a home to the "wretched refuse" and "huddled masses".

The Americans promoted the attitude that the people who were referred to as "wretched refuse" and "huddled masses" were actually wonderful people who were abused and discriminated against. They believed that by providing the wretched refuse with freedom and independence, all of the criminals, alcoholics, weirdos, and obnoxious, unemployable freaks would be able to get a job, pay their bills, and live a wonderful life.

As a result of that warped attitude, the USA would accept almost anybody from any nation. There were almost no standards for immigrants to meet.

The end result of America's "feel sorry for me" attitudes and policies is that the USA has accepted a tremendous number of immigrants with serious mental disorders. A significant percentage of the American population today is unable to cope with life, untrustworthy, irresponsible, antisocial, and neurotic. Crime is rampant in America because there are so many mentally disturbed people in this nation. The crime is not the result of the devil, ignorance, poverty, or drug dealers. The crime is the result of the American people who made a decision to commit a crime.

Likewise, there are apparently tens of thousands of pedophiles scattered throughout America's government agencies, schools, daycare centers, religions, and businesses because there are so many American people with sexual and mental disorders. The pedophiles are not the result of the devil, Japanese businessmen, Vladimir Putin, or some Russian hackers. The pedophile problem is the result of American people who have emotional and intellectual disorders, and the American law enforcement system that does almost nothing to stop this problem.

A small group of Jews have been able to get away with staging the 9/11 attack, and demolishing gigantic office buildings while thousands of people were inside. The Jews also got away with attacking the USS Liberty, and the Jews are still getting away with the lies about the Holocaust and the world wars.

The Jews are not getting away with these crimes because they are too clever for us to see what they have done. Rather, they get away with crimes because there are so many Americans who refuse to look at the evidence that Jews are responsible for the crimes, or because they have no desire to help expose and stop the Jews.

When are we going to update our school books to remove the Jewish lies? When are we going to create a nation in which we can openly discuss historical events without fear of being attacked by packs of angry Jews?

The problems that our nation is suffering from are not the result of poverty, ignorance, the devil, or the Japanese, or the Russians. It is due to the mental qualities of the American people. This nation is full of people whose brains are not suitable for this modern world.

The American government is gigantic, and it has a tremendous income every year, but it does almost nothing to help this nation. An example I recently pointed out in this document is that the government officials who are responsible for our roads will not even bother to lower the roads under railroad bridges by a few inches to prevent trucks from crashing into them.

The majority of people in every nation are constantly boasting about themselves and their nation, but we don't improve a nation by boasting about it. We improve a nation by looking critically at it, identifying problems, and experimenting with improvements.

President Trump has promised to "Make America Great Again", but as I mentioned in 2015, he did not provide any details on what he planned to do. He was just making vague promises to titillate the voters.

I don't believe that there is anything we can do to improve our nation by a significant amount. We can certainly make lots of small improvements, but I think the USA is hopeless. It was created by a group of misfits, alcoholics, and religious fanatics, and they did a terrible job of creating a nation. Their first nation, the Articles of Confederation, was a failure, and the Constitution was not much better.

The Constitution allowed the nation to become full of criminals, slaves, refugees, and weirdos from around the world. The Constitution did not even provide for a proper banking system, and that has resulted in a small group of Jews getting control of our monetary system.

The Constitution has also allowed a group of Zionist Jews to emigrate from Russia and get control of our media, government, schools, and other organizations. Those Jews, along with their network of pedophiles and other criminal cohorts, are getting control of the USA, and pushing idiotic concepts on us, such as that we are suffering from "toxic whiteness".

The fact that Google can get away with firing an employee simply for believing that men and women have genetic differences in their intellectual abilities, is proof to me that this nation is hopeless. We are not going to solve that type of problem by electing a different President, or by passing another law. We need to throw this nation in the trash and start over.

The US government recently released a memo that provides evidence that the leaders of the FBI and the Department of Justice were conspiring with the Clintons to manipulate the elections. How many of the American voters can understand the significance of that memo?

As of February 2018, other government agencies are ignoring the memo; the media is ridiculing it; and the law enforcement agencies are doing nothing about it.

The Constitution is crude social technology that needs to be updated. The Constitution did not provide the nation with an effective government. The Constitution did not even provide for a police or military force. The Constitution created a government, legal system, and voting system that is so easily manipulated that a small group of Jews have managed to get control of it without much effort.

We are not going to fix the problems of the USA simply by firing a few corrupt FBI officials, or by putting a few corrupt Congressmen in jail, or by executing the Clinton family. The USA is hopeless because it is based on the unrealistic, "feel sorry for me" attitude that the "wretched refuse" and "huddled masses" are wonderful people who have been discriminated against, bullied, or abused. We need to create a society that is based on science, not on the whiny, angry, miserable attitudes of the losers who react to their problems with temper tantrums, pouting, and crying.

We are not going to improve our nation as long as we continue to boast that we are "Underdogs", and that we offer a home to the refugees, downtrodden, wretched refuse, disadvantaged, destitute, oppressed, helpless, exploited, and unwanted. We are not heroes when we allow the mentally disturbed people from other nations to live with us. Rather, we are fools who are allowing mentally disturbed people to ruin our nation, and contaminate our gene pool.

The photo below is a portion of a larger photo that shows four of what appears to be at least seven immigrants who are living in one room of a dilapidated apartment in New York City at the beginning of the 20th century. That photo is just one of many produced by JacobRiis, and you ought to glance through them (try Google images) so that you develop a better idea of the type of immigrants that were coming into the USA at that time.

We are not heroes when we offer a home to the unskilled, uneducated, homeless, unwanted, dishonest, stupid, and/or psychotic people. The only solution to the problem of miserable people is to change our attitudes towards life and start restricting reproduction so that each generation of children is in better mental and physical health.

If you look at your ancestors, you may discover that some of them are wretched refuse, or criminals, but you don't have to let that information encourage you to feel sorry for underdogs. You don't have to behave like your ancestors, or pity them. You can become better than them. You can turn your back on them and forget about them. If you go back far enough in time, you will find some of your ancestors were monkeys or fish, but that does not require you to behave like a monkey or a fish.

In order to improve the world, we need to find a lot of people who have enough self-control to suppress their fear of the unknown and their desire to pout, and who can stimulate their pioneer spirit to the point at which they can join with other people in experiments to create new cities, new government systems, new economic systems, new law enforcement systems, and a new attitude towards life. We need to stop the "feel sorry for me" attitude, and start promoting people who want to improve our lives.

I provided a link to a document at the Federalist website, but I did not do so because I approve of that website. Rather, they had an article that summarized some of the disgusting attitudes of the Google social environment. I think that website is coming from a rival faction of criminal Jews. They do not seem to be interested in getting rid of the Jewish crime network, or the corruption in our governments or media. Rather, they seem to be a group of "conservative Jews" who are fighting the groups of "liberal Jews" for control of us.

For example, in this article they point out that Google could have avoided the lawsuit and the tarnishing of their image if they had offered James Damore a "sizable severance package in exchange for giving up his right to sue and promising not to disparage Google."

To rephrase their remark, they are pointing out that Google probably could have bribed Damore into remaining silent about the abuse. I agree that Google probably could have avoided the lawsuit by bribing Damore. The reason is because most people have such intense cravings for money that they will take a large bribe in order to remain silent about being abused. Many of the Hollywood directors and celebrities who have been accused of sexual abuse have kept their victims quiet by providing them with money or jobs.

Unfortunately, when victims accept bribes, they allow the disgusting, dishonest, and abusive people in leadership positions to continue dominating us, and continue abusing us.

Ideally, the victims of crimes would have the self-control to resist the bribes and expose the crimes, and ideally the public and law enforcement agencies would react by investigating and replacing the dishonest leaders.

Unfortunately, most victims have too strong of a craving for money, and most of the public is too apathetic to demand investigations and the replacement of the abuse leaders. We can see this problem right now with Google. The public has not yet shown any interest in having the Google management investigated, arrested, or replaced, and our law enforcement agencies don't seem to be interested in investigating or stopping the blacklisting or other illegal activities that Google and other businesses are involved with.

This problem can also be seen in Hollywood. People, including children, have complained about sexual abuse in the entertainment business for many decades, but the public doesn't show any concern, and neither do our law enforcement agencies.

I can understand why the victims of abuse are taking bribes and remaining silent. Since neither the public nor the police will come to their defense, they gain nothing by turning the bribe away. Actually, they risk being blacklisted, tormented, and even murdered if they expose their abusers. Their best option is to take the money, remain silent, and try to avoid those abusive people.

Getting back to the Federalist, they and other conservative websites and journalists are not truly trying to expose or stop the people in leadership positions from abusing us. The evidence for that accusation is that those conservative websites and journalists expose only certain abusive people, and only certain crimes. They do not want to expose the Jewish involvement in the 9/11 attack, or the Jewish lies about the Holocaust, for example. This is why I believe that they are actually just a rival Jewish crime network, as opposed to a group of honest citizens who are trying to improve the world.

While many Americans wait patiently for President Trump to "Make America Great Again," groups of Jews, pedophiles, socialists, and other people are struggling to get control of our world. Most of the world's population seems to be oblivious to this battle, or they don't care about it. What about you? Are you going to get involved?

Do you even have the ability to see the battle that is occurring? I would say that it is rather obvious. For example, when the CEOs of Google and YouTube were on television in January 2018 for an interview by a Jew and a lesbian, the background often showed the word "revolution", and along the bottom of the screen they would show such messages as "Google and YouTube Changing the World". The screen image below shows how I interpret the interview.

Yes, indeed, as the message at the bottom of the television screen announced to the audience, Google and YouTube are changing the world. However, they are changing the world without asking any of us what we would like it to change into. They are taking the role of a dictator, and treating us as goyim. They are trying to change the world as they and their secretive criminal cohorts want it to be, and they don't care what you and I think.

They want to blacklist us; not work with us. They want to conquer us, not discuss our options. They want to fire us if we dare to disagree with them. Even worse, look at all of the evidence that this group of criminals is responsible for numerous false flag operations, such as the 9/11 attack, the world wars, and the attack on the USS Liberty.

Even more sad is the evidence that many of them are involved with pedophile networks that are kidnapping children for use as sex toys, and for their idiotic belief that drinking and injecting the blood of children will prolong their life and youth.

These people are not our friends. I suspect that if we could remove the secrecy and take a close look at these people, we would classify many of them as having serious mental disorders.

The future of the world will be determined by the groups that get control of our societies. If the people with the best behavior are in a very small minority, or if they don't bother to get involved with this battle, they will allow the future of the world to be set by the networks of criminals, Jews, pedophiles, and socialists.

However, getting involved means facing the criminals and getting them out of leadership positions. We need to find men who are willing to go up to these criminals and arrest them, or restrict their jobs, or execute them, or evict them. We are not going to improve the world by praying to Jesus, or by whining about the corruption, or by electing some other corrupt political candidate. We need to find men who will actually take action to remove the criminals from positions of importance.

Sundar Pichai is one of many people complaining about President Trump's restrictions on immigrations. However, Pichai supports an immigration policy for Google that is much more restrictive than anything Donald Trump has proposed. For example, he discriminates against Caucasian men.

His firing of James Damore is analogous to a nation deporting a citizen. However, he fired Damore simply for having a difference of opinion about men and women. Imagine if Donald Trump deported people who disagreed with his particular opinions about men and women.

Furthermore, some of the people in Google are apparently involved with blacklisting Damore and other people who disagree with them. Imagine if Donald Trump was conspiring with other nations to blacklist the people they deport so that those people have trouble finding a nation to live in.

What is the difference between a business executive firing and blacklisting an employee for believing that men and women have genetic differences, and a government official who deports and blacklists a citizen for having an opinion that he disagrees with?

The Caucasian Americans were generous and kind to Sundar Pichai, but in return he discriminates against us, blacklists us, and behaves in a manner that is so atrocious that my recommendation is that he be deported. If we discover that he is working with a crime or pedophile network, then he should be arrested, or executed. We should not tolerate people – especially not immigrants – who treat us in a disgusting manner.

Susan Wojcicki also promotes destructive, disgusting attitudes. For example, during that television interview with Sundar Pichai, she said that she has spent her life trying to encourage women to get involved in technical issues, but that James Damore "seemed to set it back so far."

She is making the accusation that one document written by one man has undone her life's work in helping women. This is a ridiculous remark to make. She is making Damore appear to be some type of monster who is ruining life for women.

She is encouraging women to believe that one man, by himself, is capable of ruining life for women simply by writing one brief document that expresses an opinion that millions of people around the world agree with.

I would classify Susan Wojcicki's remark as the most ridiculous excuse for women's failures that I have heard so far. And it comes from a top business executive, not a mentally ill retard in a mental hospital. Our standards for leadership are so low that people like her are allowed in top positions of business, and they are interviewed on television.

A lot of people whine about "hate speech", but who among us is really spreading hatred? I would say Susan Wojcicki and Sundar Pichai are spreading hatred. Susan Wojcicki is encouraging women to hate James Damore, and to blame Damore for their problems. She is also encouraging women to pout. She is not encouraging sensible discussions or productive behavior.

Damore's document cannot ruin life for women. It merely put into words a common opinion. If a woman has the talent and desire to be an engineer, computer programmer, technician, machinist, welder, dentist, or doctor, she is going to continue to have that talent and desire despite the fact that Damore wrote that document. That document is not going to take away any woman's talent.

That document will not prevent any woman from getting any particular job, either. The women who use that document as justification for failing to get a job, or failing in their engineering classes, are simply using Damore as an excuse to justify their failures.

We should not tolerate leaders who make idiotic remarks. We should learn something of value from our leaders. Wojcicki should be disqualified from a leadership position on the grounds that she is encouraging women to pout, whine, and hate. She is encouraging women to make excuses for their failures.

The Google executives believe that Damore should be fired for making an idiotic remark, but I would respond that many business executives are making idiotic remarks, and it is those executives we need to fire.

We need leaders who will encourage both men and women to analyze themselves and one another, try to understand our characteristics and differences, and try to figure out how to set up a society so that men and women can enjoy one another. With proper leaders, life will improve for us through the years.

Women should be told to experiment with activities in order to discover their talents, and to accept whatever it is that they find. If a woman discovers that she is not very good at engineering, then she should accept that fact rather than whine that the engineering companies should be forced to hire more women.

Sundar Pichai did not want to live in India. Anybody who has seen photos, or visited India, can understand why so many people in India want to move to Europe, Japan, or the USA. Specifically, India is a filthy, ugly, overcrowded nation by comparison.

However, the solution to this problem is not to allow every person in India to move to America. A better solution is to tell the people in India to make their nation more desirable so that the people don't want to escape from it.

Why is India so much more ugly, polluted, and overcrowded compared to Europe, Japan, and the United States? It is not because of poverty or ignorance. It is because of the people in India.

At the beginning of this document, I emphasized the concept that an organization is a reflection of its people. As I discussed years ago here, Taiwan is much more impressive than China, but not because China is suffering from abuse by Japan, or because China doesn't have enough natural resources, or because China doesn't have enough control of the South Pacific Sea. The reason is because the people in Taiwan, as a group, are higher quality humans than those in China. China has a higher percentage of crude people who behave like animals.

Likewise, India has a higher percentage of people behaving like animals compared to Europe and the USA. This is why their nations are so messy, and why there is such a problem with homelessness, litter, and women being raped.

Why are Denmark, Switzerland, and Belgium such productive nations with such high-quality living conditions? They are very small nations, and they don't have the resources that China or India has, but life in those nations is much more pleasant. The reason is simply because those nations have a higher percentage of high-quality humans.

It is the quality of the people's minds that determine the social environment of an organization, not their natural resources, or whether they have control over the South Pacific Sea. A lot of people boast about the people in their nation, but if the people of any nation were as wonderful as they claim to be, their nation would stand out because it would be far superior to the others.

Likewise, if the Jews were the superior race, we – especially Jews – would want to be friends with, and marry, a Jew.

People in the primitive nations often accuse the wealthy nations of exploiting them and keeping them in poverty, but they are the people keeping themselves in poverty. Many of them have much more natural resources than Denmark or Belgium, but they waste it.

Saudi Arabia, for example, has a tremendous income, but the people in that nation are of such low quality that they don't use their oil income wisely. Instead, they allow a small family to have absurd amounts of wealth, and they waste whatever is left over on stupid projects.

It's interesting to consider the possibility that one of the reasons India is such a disgusting nation is that it has lots of people like Sundar Pichai.

What is Pichai doing in the USA? My guess is that he has joined a Jewish crime network, and he is spending his life trying to manipulate, deceive, and abuse us, while gathering enormous amounts of money for himself.

If America had not allowed him into our nation, and if he had been forced to remain in India, what would he be doing in India? How would he be treating the people in India? It is very likely that he would have behaved the same in India as he behaves here in the USA. Therefore, he might have joined a crime network in India and spent his life trying to become a billionaire. He might also have fired employees simply for having a difference of opinion, and then blacklisted those employees.

If he had remained in India, he would have had the same attitude of superiority that he has right now, but his attitude of superiority would have been directed against the Indian people rather than Caucasians.

It is common in India for the people to look down upon one another as inferior, and to discriminate against them, so we should not be surprised to discover that Sundar Pichai has that same crude, arrogant attitude. When he moved to the USA, he should have adapted to the American cultural practice of treating people more equally and fairly. Instead, he continues to behave like a crude, arrogant Indian who thinks he is superior to other people, and who believes that he is justified in firing us, blacklisting us, and abusing us.

In addition to widespread discrimination in India, there is also supposedly a lot of bribery, corruption, cheating, and disregard of laws. This article in Wikipedia claims that 92% of the population has at one time had to pay a bribe to a public official. What kind of a nation is that? The raping of women seems to be more common in India than Europe or America, also.

Why is India such a disgusting, crude nation? The reason may be because it has lots of people with a mind that is similar to that of Sundar Pichai. Specifically, people who are struggling to become billionaires, and who are so arrogant, and so convinced of their superiority, that they will join crime networks and abuse, deceive, manipulate, bribe, blacklist, and cheat the people they regard as inferior.

Ideally, we would set higher standards for immigrants. We should accept only the well-behaved people from India, not their crude creatures who believe that they are superior to the rest of us, or who want to be billionaires, or who are willing to join crime networks.

If a person wants to immigrate to the USA only to make money, we are not going to benefit from him. That type of immigrant is like an animal. We should accept people only if they are going to fit into our society and become a productive and pleasant team member. We are not going to benefit from crude, arrogant, selfish animals who merely want money, especially if they are also willing to join crime networks.

In November 2017 I posted a link to this video that provides evidence that Michelle Obama is a man, not a woman. (Update: that video has been deleted, so try this.) During the following months, more information has come out about how corrupt the Obama administration is, and at the beginning of February 2018, a memo was unclassified that shows that the Obama administration, FBI, and Department of Justice were conspiring to help Hillary Clinton get elected as President.

There is now so much evidence that the Obama administration, many government agencies, and the media, are dominated by a network of criminals that the people who have been resisting the possibility that Michelle Obama is a man might finally be willing to look at some of the evidence that is less convincing. So, I present to you her masculine ankles. This section does not provide any serious evidence that she is a man, but you might find it so interesting that you start observing ankles.

If Michelle Obama is a man, then her body should have a lot of male characteristics. Unfortunately, we cannot inspect her body, or give her a DNA analysis. All we can do is look at photos of her that have been posted on the Internet. Those photos are not very useful, but they are better than nothing.

Some people have pointed out that her shoulders seem wider than a normal for a woman, but I think a better way of determining whether she has masculine qualities is to look at her lack of flexibility. Women have joints that are more flexible than those of men, and the easiest way to see this difference is to observe our ankles.

These two photos show that women can bend their ankles so far that their foot aligns with their shin. This is why it is possible for ballerinas to walk on their toes.

The reason these differences exist between men and women is because we evolved for different roles in life. We are not a unisex creature.

Men evolved to search for food, protect the women and children, and fight with their neighbors. Our male ancestors needed bodies that had strength. Women, by comparison, evolved to remain at a campsite with other women and children and do chores around the home, such as gathering fruits and vegetables, feeding the children, and making clothing and baskets. Women needed flexibility and dexterity in their fingers, and they needed flexibility to be able to sit for long periods without their ankles, knees, or hips becoming sore.

When men and women dangle their foot while sitting cross legged, a woman's ankle will bend at a noticeably larger angle. Once you realize this difference between men and women, you can often identify a man who is pretending to be a woman by observing the angle that her ankle is making with her leg. Women can also bend their fingers backwards much farther than men.

Michelle Obama, however, does not show as much flexibility as a typical woman. Every photo that I have seen of her sitting in a chair shows that her ankle is as inflexible as that of a man. This could be meaningless, of course, since half of the population will always be less flexible than "average" as a result of genetic differences between us. Our flexibility also differs because of medical problems, such as arthritis, and injuries and obesity. The type of shoes we wear can also affect the angle that our ankle makes.

The photo to the left shows Michelle on the Today television program. The photo to the right is a close-up of her ankle of another photo during that same program.

The photo to the left shows Michelle Obama with Prince Harry. The photo to the right is a close-up of another photo of her with Prince Harry.

It is possible that Michelle Obama has unusually stiff joints, but we ought to consider the possibility that her inflexibility is the result of having been born with a male body rather than a female body.

We cannot truly determine whether a person is male or female simply by measuring the flexibility in their joints, but you might find it interesting to start noticing the difference in flexibility between people. From my casual observations, the women who want to become mothers are more flexible than the women who want jobs in areas that are dominated by men.

For example, when Oprah is sitting in a chair, her ankle doesn't bend very far, either.

In the photo to the right, both of Oprah's feet are dangling, but neither ankle is bending much. Is she deliberately doing that to prevent her shoes from slipping off? Perhaps, but we should consider the possibility that some of these women are unusually masculine, and some of them are men pretending to be women.

If it turns out that Michelle Obama truly has a man's body, then you ought to wonder:

•Is Michelle Obama the only man in this world who is deceiving us about his sex?

• Is Michelle Obama the only man that the media, government officials, doctors, and school officials are assisting with this deception?

• How can anybody describe the American Constitution as an appropriate government system for this modern world when that type of deception is going on, and none of the law enforcement or military agencies do anything to expose or stop it?