Hufschmid's main page
Previous comments

My comments on
some recent events

2 June 2014

“We have proof at last of Russia's intentions! We can finally justify a war!”

The Jews are failing over and over
Are Jews a different race?
Why do we have trouble controlling ourselves?
Elliott Rodger and other lunatics
Are we too incompetent to participate in our health care?
The Trans-Pacific Partnership
Will any of us live to see proper leadership?

The Jews are still failing, over and over
I use AOL for email, and they display news headlines whenever I sign on to check my email. On the morning of 2 May 2014, their number one news item was about a 10 hour battle in the Ukraine and the shooting down of two helicopters. Highlighted in blue was the interesting question, "Proof at last of Russia's intentions?"
Later that evening their number one news article was about a fire in Odessa that killed dozens of people, but the text under the headline was the same:
If you were writing a news article about the fighting in the Ukraine, would you ask, "Proof at last of Russia's intentions?" That question implies that we have been waiting for proof of Russia's intentions, and that the shooting of the two helicopters might be the proof that we have been waiting for.

Hopefully you can see that the remark is a sign of how desperate the Jews have become to instigate a world war.

We are confused by Russia, not waiting for proof

Russia and China have isolated themselves from the rest of the world throughout human history, and until recently, they would not even allow their citizens to travel outside of their nation. Both of those nations have treated their citizens as prisoners or kidnapping victims. For thousands of years, both nations have had governments that are dominated by antisocial, aggressive, violent savages. Their governments also irritate everybody in the world with their constant envy of us, whining about us, and their hatred and paranoia of us.

The European nations, Japan, Taiwan, and many other nations are cooperative and friendly, but the Russian and Chinese governments behave more like packs of wild savages. As a result of their crude behavior, most people in the world don't know much about those nations, and don't feel an emotional bond to the people. Their crude behavior does not inspire us to regard them as our friends. Rather, we are more likely to pity their citizens, and be thankful that we were not born in those nations. As a result of their seclusion and crude behavior, most of us do not know what the Ukrainians and Russians are fighting about, and most of us don't care, and most of us have no desire to get involved with their mysterious arguments.

Our history classes teach us that millions of Russians and Chinese died or were murdered when the Communists took over, but I have never seen Americans show a concern for those deaths. Most of us react to news reports about Russians and Chinese killing each other as we react to reports about wolves fighting with each other. If the Russians and Chinese were our friends, then we would be concerned about their suffering, but both nations constantly irritate us with their secrecy, stealing from us, whining, hatred, and paranoia.

I suspect that Jews are secretly staging violent attacks in Russia and Ukraine in an effort to get a war started. Every time the Russians display some type of military action, the Jews bombard Americans with propaganda about how the evil Russians are attacking the innocent Ukrainians. The Jews are hoping that the Americans will get involved with the fighting in order to save the Ukrainians, but the Jews are going to fail again. Most Americans want to ignore that part of the world, not to join in on their fights.

Furthermore, every day more people learn about how the Jews instigate wars. I suspect that it was sometime around 2004 when so many people became aware of the Jews that it was no longer possible for them to start a world war. Millions of sheeple are still being manipulated by Jewish propaganda, but there are too many people of importance who are aware of their tricks. As a result, the Jews have been failing continuously to start a war with Iran, North Korea, Georgia, Africa, and China. They are going to fail in the Ukraine, also.

“A war could start accidentally!”

On 4 March 2014, Michael Savage, (I mention him here), interviewed Paul Watson (who works with Alex Jones), about the events in Ukraine. The box below has a transcript of a portion of that interview:
Watson: ... we could have an incident which could spark a hot war within the Ukraine, and that's the big risk.

Savage: So, in other words, a war could begin almost by accident in this situation.

Watson: It's so easy for that to happen, it's unbelievable.

Savage: You know this reminds me of the guns of August 1917. I've said this repeatedly. World War I was a war that started almost by accident in a very similar manner. Again, over an incident in the Balkans, or related to the Balkans. It was a tinderbox, and one world power threatened the other, one dared the other, and then they were sort of dragged into it based on, uh, an ego game. I see a very similar element here. Is that an irrational analysis, or do you think there are comparabilities here?

Watson: I think it's entirely comparable, and the fact that World War I, a hundred years ago, started on much less of a pretext than some of the footage we've seen even today out of Ukraine, is chilling to say the least.

  Savage-interviews-Watson-4Mar2014.mp3 530 Kbytes
The entire interview is here on YouTube.

Hopefully you can understand how Savage and Watson are trying to manipulate their audience. Specifically, the Jews and their agents bring a problem to our attention, but they make no attempt to encourage us to analyze the problem or suggest possible solutions. Instead, they try to convince us that the problem could accidentally escalate into a disaster, such as a war. They imply that there is nothing we can do to stop this accident from happening.

How can a world war start "accidentally"? How can military personnel in different nations "accidentally" gather their advanced weapons, travel to a foreign nation, and start killing millions of people and bombing cities? Michael Savage never bothers to explain this mystery, and he does nothing to encourage us to prevent accidental wars.

Rather than offer possible solutions to these problems, the Jews try to incapacitate us with fear, paranoia, hysteria, and feelings of helplessness. They discourage attempts to understand the problems, and they dampen attempts to take action. When the Jews are speaking to religious people, they encourage the audience to pray to Jesus rather than take action.

“A world war could start accidentally in the Ukraine. Don't try to stop the inevitable! Instead, prepare for a war, and pray to Jesus that the war ends quickly.”
During that interview, Watson pointed out that the first world war got started over a much less significant issue than the fighting in the Ukraine. I think he and a lot of other Jews are becoming extremely frustrated that they have provided us with more justification for a war, but we are putting up more resistance to starting a war. Their frustration is causing them to make idiotic remarks, such as, "Proof at last of Russia's intentions?"

Who passed out anti-Semitic leaflets in the Ukraine?

In April 2014, a few men wearing masks passed out some leaflets outside of a synagogue in the Ukraine. The leaflets told the Jewish people to register with the government. Jews around the world boasted that they are under an attack by anti-Semites. However, the event has a lot of peculiar similarities to Crystal Night of 1938, and therefore, we should consider it as an attempt by Jews to bring pity to themselves, and to frighten the Jews into joining other Jews in fighting the mysterious anti-Semites.

By 1938, the Nazis had been in control of Germany for years, and there was no sign that they were losing control of the nation. However, during the night of 9 November 1938 (9-11-38, as they write the date in Germany), some mysterious men vandalized Jewish businesses during the night.

Many non-Jewish Germans were involved with Crystal Night, but if the Nazi government had truly wanted to evict or hurt the Jews, or take away their businesses, they could have done so during the daylight. They were in control of the nation, so they did not have to sneak around during the night and throw rocks through windows. They could have sent the police or military to the Jewish homes and businesses, and then evict the Jews.

The Nazi leadership could not have been so stupid as to believe that their best method to get rid of Jews was to vandalize Jewish businesses or homes. Vandalism is destructive to a nation. When the police want to arrest a person, they try to make the arrest without damaging the buildings, gardens, farms, and other things in the area.

Whenever we find a group of mysterious people doing something in a very secretive manner, such as the group "Anonymous", we should wonder, "Why are these people hiding their identity, and who are they hiding from?"

Furthermore, whenever we find a group of people doing something that is significantly below their intellectual level, we should consider the possibility that we are being deceived about who is actually involved with the incident.

The most sensible explanation for the secrecy and senseless vandalism of Crystal Night is that the people responsible for it were Jews. They could not do it during the day because then everybody would realize that Jews were involved. The Jews had to fool the Nazi government, the German people, and other nations, into thinking that Crystal Night was an official Nazi operation.

Likewise, the most sensible explanation for the secrecy of the people who passed out the leaflets to the Ukrainian Jews was that they were Jews, or working for the Jews.

Another anti-Semite fails to kill Jews

On 13 April 2014 Glenn Miller traveled to a Jewish community center and killed two people who were supposedly Christians, and then traveled to a Jewish retirement center and killed one woman who was supposedly Christian. Have you noticed the pattern that the people who hate and attack Jews are rarely successful in their attempts to kill Jews? For example:
• In 2009, James von Brunn traveled to a Holocaust Memorial Museum and killed a black security guard.

• In 1999, Buford Furrow loaded his van with five rifles, two pistols, 6000 rounds of ammunition, and a flak jacket, and he drove to a Jewish community center. He went into the Jewish center, but he left almost all of his weapons and ammunition in the van. He fired 70 shots at the Jews, but he only wounded five people, and then he left the area. Later that day he killed a US postal worker.

• The Muslim terrorist organizations, such as Al Qaeda, supposedly hate Jews, but they attack Europeans, Americans, Africans, and other people, not Israelis or Jews.

Virtually all of the anti-Semitic acts, including Crystal Night, follow the suspicious pattern that Jews are rarely hurt. You should also be suspicious of how many of the anti-Semites have a large collection of weapons and ammunition, but when they go on a killing spree, they leave their arsenal at home or in their car.

Another suspicious aspect of the anti-Semites is that they are incredibly ignorant of Jewish crimes. How could a person who hates Jews not be aware of the evidence that Jews blew up the World Trade Center buildings with explosives, or that Jews are lying about the Holocaust and Anne Frank's diary? (I have more on this issue here and here.)

It should be obvious that the anti-Semites who get publicity are those who are under Jewish control. For example, in 2010 Glenn Miller ran for the Missouri state Senate, and even though Jews condemned him for being an anti-Semite and a former KKK member, Howard Stern interviewed him. Stern also praised him as being the most honest politician that he knows of. (You can listen to the interview here on YouTube.)

We should consider Glenn Miller to be another Jewish puppet that the Jews are using to manipulate your opinions.

Malaysian Flight 370; another failure
An article at has such amusing remarks as, "How on earth, with all our technology, do we lose a giant plane?" and "Do we live in the stone age or something?"

That particular article tries to convince us that the airplane is missing due to limitations of modern technology, but most other journalists are trying to convince us that the pilot of the plane was a suicidal, Muslim terrorist.

At the beginning of May 2014, eleven terrorists with "links" to Al Qaeda were arrested on suspicion of being involved in the disappearance of MH370. It has been several weeks since those arrests, but there is still no information on how Al Qaeda was involved.

Meanwhile, Time magazine gave publicity to the complaints of the former Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohamad. He has several entries in his blog in which he makes vague accusations that Boeing and the CIA are hiding something, and that they have the ability to take remote control of the aircraft in order to save it from terrorists. He also complains that the media is protecting Boeing and the CIA.

A more sensible explanation for Flight 370 is that the Jews failed in another of their false flag operations, and that the media is protecting the Jews by diverting attention to Al Qaeda, Boeing, and the CIA.

I suppose that the Jews were planning to do a variation of their 9/11 attack. Specifically, arrange for an airplane to appear as if the pilot was a member of a terrorist Muslim organization in Iran, and then have it crash into China.

However, crashing an empty drone would not cause much anger, so I suppose Israel was planning to put radioactive waste, or some weapon, on the drone. Jews throughout the world would then claim that we have proof at last of Iran's intentions, and that a war with Iran is finally justified.

During the 9/11 attack, it appears as if the two commercial airplanes that supposedly crashed into the towers landed at Stewart Air Force Base and were replaced with drones. A drone also hit the Pentagon. The lesson to learn from the 9/11 attack is that the commercial airplanes are replaced by drones.

If you are familiar with the 9/11 attack, then you should recall that prior to the attack, the Jews arranged for some patsies to appear as if they were planning for the attack, such as learning how to fly airplanes, but not learning how to land the airplanes.

The Jews also tried to get as many people as possible connected to the attack so that if anything failed, there would be lots of people besides Jews to blame. For example, the Jews convinced the Pakistani ISI to give money to the terrorists, thereby giving the Jews the option of blaming Pakistan for funding the attack. Fortunately, not many people believed that Pakistan was responsible, which is why Michael Meacher, a British government official, wrote this article in 2004 in which he complains that nobody is showing any interest in "The Pakistan connection" to 9/11.

By analyzing the 9/11 attack, and other false flag operations, we can deduce that prior to the disappearance of Flight 370, the Jews had set up some Muslims to take the blame for the attack on China. In order to make the attack look real, the Jews had to arrange for some type of weapon to be on that airplane. Of course, it would not be a real weapon. Since the airplane would be replaced with a drone, all the Jews had to do was fill some boxes with dirt, and then make it appear as if the boxes were carrying a weapon.

The government is still hiding the details of the cargo on that airplane, but they admit that there were a lot of lithium batteries, so perhaps the Jews were going to make it appear as if lithium batteries were the power source for the bomb.

If a drone was going to replace Flight 370, then where would the drone come from? During the 9/11 attack, the US military supplied the drones, but would the US military do that a second time? Is the US military still as corrupt, ignorant, and foolish as they were in 2001? Is the US military still dominated by Jewish puppets, such as Major-General Albert Stubblebine, who promotes "remote viewing"?

Considering that lots of Jews have been whining about Obama's "purge" of the military, we can hope that the military is cleaning their organization of criminals. (If you have any contact with the military, try to find a way to help speed up this cleansing process.)

In March 2014, Christopher Bollyn posted an article that claimed that Israel has an airplane that looks identical to the missing Malaysian airline, and that the Israelis may be planning to use it in some future false flag operation. A couple weeks later he posted an article in which he says that the duplicate of Flight 370 is owned by GA Telesis, a Florida-based company that has only one airplane in their fleet, and he wonders why they store their only airplane in a hangar in Israel.

At the end of April, he posted an article with the title "Was MH370 a U.S./Israeli False Flag Operation?". The article points out that GA Telesis appears to be a front company, and that the founder may be associated with the U.S. Navy. He is willing to consider that Israel was involved, but only in a subservient role. (Bollyn has a list of his articles here.)

Since the Bollyn family has been kidnapped by Jews, we must assume that his articles are Jewish propaganda that is intended to shift the blame away from Jews. This leads me to conclude that if Israel has a duplicate of Flight 370, then it was the drone that the Jews were planning to use in the attack on China. Now that the operation failed, what are they going to do with that airplane?

The Jews are failing to start fights with Muslims

The Jews have been struggling to create hatred of Muslims for centuries, and they show no sign of stopping. They also seem to be involved with bringing Muslims to Europe and America in an attempt to create fights. On 16 May 2014, AOL had this news headline:
Can you see the attempt to manipulate you?

They are using the Pied Piper trick. They want you to believe that everybody is outraged, and, therefore, you should join the flock of sheep.

We are tolerating journalism of an extremely low quality level. We allow journalists to make remarks, such as claiming something has caused global outrage, without demanding that journalists provide evidence for their accusations. Who among the 7 billion people on the planet was outraged by this particular incident?
“There is global outrage! You should hate the Muslims, also, you stupid sheep. Join the crowd!”
My suspicion is that the Jews secretly instigated this incident, and then gave it worldwide publicity in the hope of creating anger towards Muslims. Fortunately, most people ignored the incident, and after a few days the incident was forgotten. The Jews have failed yet again.

The Jews are failing to instigate racial fights

The Jews are becoming increasingly frustrated that they cannot control, remove, or assassinate President Obama or Eric Holder. They are losing control of governments everywhere. Their attempts to create racial fights is also failing. The image below was another that got worldwide publicity by Jews but, fortunately, most people ignored it.
The Jews have been failing to start racial fights year after year, but they continue to try, and by using the same techniques each time. I find this somewhat amusing because Jews frequently claim that Einstein said something like, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result".

Since nobody has evidence that Einstein created that expression, and after seeing the evidence that Einstein plagiarized his theories, I suppose the Jews are giving credit to Einstein in an attempt to make Jews appear intelligent and creative.

Alex Jones, Jeff Rense, Mike Rivero, and lots of other "truth seekers" are still putting out the same propaganda in 2014 that they were putting out years earlier. The Jews also produce the same Holocaust propaganda every year, and they regularly whine about how anti-Semitism is increasing. Certainly some Jews have the intelligence to sense that people are becoming wise to their tricks, but they don't change their tactics. Why not? Maybe they don't understand the remark that they attribute to Einstein.

The Jews are failing with Al Qaeda

Recently there were some attempted kidnappings, which I suppose was another failed operation by Jews. As with the Flight 370, the Jews tell us "al-Qaeda" or "al-Qaida" was somehow involved.
A lot of the sheeple are fooled by the Al-Qaida propaganda, but the sheeple will not determine the future of the human race. Is there anybody of importance who still believes that a mysterious, elusive group of suicidal Muslims are living in caves and trying to kill us?

The Nazi propaganda is failing

In May 2014, the journalists told us that Germans were outraged over a soap that was referred to as "88". The media told us that the eighth letter of the alphabet is H, and that the German people were interpreting 88 as representing "HH", which could be interpreted as representing the phrase "Heil Hitler".
Once again we find the media making a remark that they do not and cannot support; namely, that shoppers are outraged. Which shoppers are outraged? How many shoppers?

I suspect that Jews were secretly involved with referring to the soap as "88", and then they gave the publicity to the issue. But is anybody of importance still being manipulated by this type of propaganda?

Why should Germans feel guilty for the Nazis?

Incidentally, even if it were true that the Nazis started the World Wars, and even if it were true that the Nazis killed 6 million Jews, why should the German people today feel guilty for Hitler, or what their ancestors did? No other nation shows any guilt for what their ancestors did. Besides, Hitler was from Austria, not Germany. Why not tell the Austrian people to feel guilty for producing Hitler? Austria also produced Josef Fritzl.

Furthermore, I suspect that if we had a better understanding of history, we would find that there was a lot more bad behavior than we realize. For example, in September 1666, there was an incredible fire in London. Supposedly it was an accident, but I suspect that it was arson.

At that time in human history, the monarchies were frequently sending their foolish peasants to fight wars. During the 1600s, the English King was envious of the Dutch shipping businesses, but rather than encourage the English people to compete with the Dutch in a fair manner, he encouraged the English people to hate and fight with the Dutch. In August 1666 some proud and foolish English citizens decided to serve their King by traveling to Holland and burning one of their coastal cities and their fleet of merchant ships. The fire became known as Holme's Bonfire.

What a coincidence that about two weeks later an incredible fire got started in London. It spread so rapidly and consumed so many buildings that I suspect that some Dutch citizens had secretly sailed into London and were setting fires throughout the city in retaliation for Holme's Bonfire.

The English people don't show any guilt for Holme's Bonfire or any of the other the senseless slaughters conducted by their ancestors, so why should the Germans feel guilty for what their ancestors did? To make the situation more absurd, it was the Jews, not the Germans, who were responsible for the Nazi party, Crystal Night, and the world wars. And Alfred Rosenberg, not a German, came up with the Nazi philosophy.

If a group of people should feel guilty for the world wars, it would be the Jews, but have you met a Jew who feels guilty for what his ancestors have done? I don't think any Jew even feels guilty for the crimes they are committing today.

We are still "peasants"

When humans settled into cities several thousand years ago, they entered a new social environment, but they continued to behave like savages. For example, they continue to allow their societies to become dominated by whichever man was the most successful at fighting for control. The end result was that their societies soon became dominated by abnormally aggressive, selfish men who had intense cravings for status and material wealth. Those men fooled the citizens into believing in the concept of "monarchies" and "inheritances". They became Kings and Queens, and most other people degraded into "peasants".

The Kings and Queens fooled the peasants into fighting wars. The peasants were proud to die for their King and Queen, but they didn't benefit from the wars. While their worthless and selfish Kings and Queens lived in luxury, the peasants would kill one another, rape one another, torture one another, and burn each other's cities.

During the past few centuries, the Kings and Queens lost so much influence over society that they cannot start a war today, but Jews gained significant influence. The people remained as peasants, but they began serving the Jews. During the world wars, millions of peasants killed one another, blinded one another, and destroyed one another's cities, while the Jews profited and developed Israel.

It is debatable as to whether serving Jews is an improvement over serving Kings and Queens. Would Kings and Queens have instigated such vicious world wars? Would Kings and Queens have staged the 9/11 attack and ordered the peasants to install explosives in the World Trade Center buildings? I don't think so. I suspect that the 20th century would have been noticeably less violent if the Kings and Queens had still been in control of Europe. I suspect that the Jews are more violent, selfish, and abusive.

The Kings and Queens would also have been less of a financial burden on us. America and Germany, for example, are giving billions of dollars a year to Jews. It is less expensive to have a Royal family.

Are Jews a different race?
Ever since I was a child, I have been listening to Jews boast that they are the superior race of people, and that Jews are a race, not a religion. I have heard Jews insist that nobody can become a Jew unless their mother was a Jew. I have heard Jews claim that a Jew who becomes a Christian is a Jewish Christian, and that a Jew who becomes an atheist is a Jewish atheist. I also heard Jews insist that Sammy Davis was not a Jew.

By boasting that they are a superior race, the Jews caused many of us to wonder if they really are a different race. If the Jews are a different race, we should be able to look back in history and find that their ancestors were genetically isolated from the rest of us for a long time.

A few years ago I and other people were told about Arthur Koestler's book, The Thirteenth Tribe (here). You don't have to read the entire book to understand the point he is trying to make; namely, that he believes the white-skinned, Ashkenazi Jews are descendants of the Khazars.

How accurate is Koestler's theory? Nobody today can answer that question because we don't know enough about human history or genetics. To add to the confusion, our ancestors have been interbreeding and raping one another for millions of years, thereby mixing the gene pools.

Humans also have a tendency to take care of orphaned children, and there were certainly many times in human history when a group of people found the orphaned child of a different race, and raised it as one of their own, further mixing the gene pools.

In April 2014, David Duke posted this article in which he tries to discredit Arthur Koestler's theory that the white, Askenazi Jews are descendants of the Khazars. However, nobody, not even David Duke, knows what a "Jew" is, or who among us should be classified as a Jew, or where they originated from. So why is David Duke claiming to be an expert on Jews? Why is he trying to discredit Koestler's theory?

If you have looked through my articles about anti-Semites (such as this), then you should realize that all of the anti-Semites who get publicity show evidence that they are under the control of Jews. David Duke exhibits the symptoms of a blackmailed puppet who is following orders from Jews. Therefore, instead of asking why David Duke posted that article, we should ask, why would Duke's Jewish handlers order him to post that article? Why would Jews want to discredit Koestler's theory?

I think the reason is because every day more people learn that Jews are responsible for the world wars, the 9/11 attack, and many other crimes, and after people discover that information, many people will ponder such questions as, "What is a Jew?" Eventually, some of those people will discover Koestler's theory.

I think the Jews are worried that their reputation will be tarnished by the bad behavior of the Khazars, but nobody is going to judge a Jew according to the Khazars. For one reason, we don't know much about the Khazars, but a more important reason is that we know so little about human ancestry that we cannot seriously determine who is related to the Khazars, and how closely related a person is to the Khazars. Most of us can trace our ancestry only for a few generations.

It is silly to judge Jews according to the Khazars. For all we know, only a small percentage of the people who call themselves "Jews" are related to the Khazars, and that most of the Jews are related to the Huns, Mongols, or other savages.

Furthermore, the Jews might be a mixture of savages. If we could go back in time 1000 years, we might find that the crude savages of central Asia were much more compatible with one another than they were to the humans of western Europe and Japan, resulting in the savages interbreeding with one another much more than they interbred with the humans. This would complicate the issue of what a Jew is because most Jews may be a mixture of savages from central Asia rather than a purebred savage.

However, why should we care which group of people the Jews came from? Would you care if DNA tests prove that Larry Silverstein, Henry Kissinger, or Alfred Rosenberg is a descendant of the Huns rather than the Khazars? Would that information change how you feel about them?

Don't be fooled by the Jews who are trying to discredit Koestler's theory. We have to judge Jews by their behavior and their value to society, not according to which group of savages they descended from.

Why do we have trouble controlling ourselves?
An analysis of the 9/11 attack shows that before the Jews run a false flag operation, they try to get as many government officials, policemen, and other people involved in the attack as possible, or under their control through blackmail or bribery, so that they have lots of people to help them with the operation, and to help them suppress the truth.

Therefore, we should assume that many government officials, policemen, business executives, and other people in Malaysia, China, and other nations assisted with the disappearance of Flight 370, or are helping the Jews to suppress the truth about it.

Why did an airplane from Malaysia disappear rather than an airplane from Taiwan, Japan, or Vietnam? We should consider that the reason is because the Jews have more control over Malaysia, but why would they have more control over Malaysia? Perhaps because there are more people in Malaysia who cannot control their emotional cravings, which would make them easier for a crime network to recruit.

Did you know that on May 30, 2014, a 15-year-old girl in Malaysia was raped by 38 men over a span of many hours? Since those men will join that type of crime for free, what type of crime would those men join if we offered them a lot of money?

As I mentioned earlier in this document, the former Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohamad, complained that Boeing and the CIA are lying to us about Fight 370. He also blamed the 9/11 attack on the US government, rather than on Israel or Jews, and he advocates putting George Bush and Tony Blair on trial for war crimes, but he doesn't want to arrest any Jews. It should be obvious that he is a Jewish puppet, just like David Duke.

A lot of Chinese officials may also have been involved with the disappearance of Fight 370, which would explain why the Jews had the confidence to crash the airplane into China.

This brings up an interesting issue. Specifically, with the Internet exposing the Jews, and with anger building towards Jews, why would anybody be willing to join the Jews in one of their false flag operations?

Several decades ago, the Jews were so successful with crimes and propaganda that I can understand why some people would give up fighting them, and I can also understand why some people might have come to the conclusion that the sheeple are so hopeless that the Jews will eventually get control of the world, so they may as well join the winning side.

During the past 10 years, however, the Internet has allowed people around the world to learn the truth about the Jews. Anger is building towards Jews, corrupt government officials, and crime networks. The Jews are now losing, so why would anybody want to join them in their crimes?

That question is similar to: With all of the information available to us about the dangers of obesity, why would anybody eat such excessive amounts of food that they become obese?

Or how about: With all of the information available to us about the dangers of alcoholism, why would anybody drink to such an excess that they become an alcoholic?

We could restate those questions as: Why don't people choose the most sensible option?

Everybody occasionally does something that they wish they hadn't done, especially when we are children. We all occasionally struggle to control our emotional cravings and try not to do something stupid, destructive, or irritating. However, we differ in our ability to control our cravings and make sensible decisions.

In 1991, in the city that I live in, one of our city officials, David Landecker, was forced to resign after he was caught switching price tags on a pair of garden shears, which saved him an insignificant amount of money. Why would a government official take such a big risk for such an insignificant benefit? What is different about his mind compared to those of us who never shoplift or switch price tags? Does he have less control over his emotional cravings? Or does his mind not think as well as ours?

Incidentally, today Landecker is once again running for City Council, and he received endorsements from people, such as a former mayor of Santa Barbara. Government officials are so corrupt that I can understand why they support dishonest candidates, but should anybody else support him?

Landecker brings up an important issue that voters should be aware of and discuss. Specifically, when we must choose a person for a leadership position, regardless of whether it is for government, business, school, or sports, the voters must pass judgment on which of the candidates is showing undesirable mental qualities.

We must expect bad behavior from children, but what should we expect from an adult in a leadership position? Is it acceptable for our leaders to switch price tags? How about shoplifting? What about alcoholism? If we expect too much perfection, nobody will qualify, so what should we expect?

What is OCD?

A lot of people have been described as having an "obsessive compulsive disorder", or OCD. Britain has produced some television shows about people who are obsessed with cleaning items. Some of them have put their obsession to good use; namely, offering cleaning services. Although their obsession is amusing rather than a danger to society, it interferes with their lives, and some of them may be harming their health. For example, a woman named Hayley has such an obsession with sterilizing items with bleach that she spends hours a day exposed to bleach fumes.

Why can't they stop their obsessive cleaning or their fear of germs? Why can't they become "normal"? They are obviously intelligent enough to understand that they have a problem, and many of them want to reduce the time they waste on cleaning, but they can't control their cravings. Why not? What is different about their minds? Should people with obsessions be allowed in leadership positions?

Incidentally, Hayley shows another reason why it would be useful for us to have a database that had information about everybody's life. That database would help us determine if the people who are exposed to bleach fumes are suffering any long-term effects on their corneas, lungs, or skin. Other people are exposed to other chemicals in their home or job, and some people are exposed to various powders, smokes, or fumes. Detailed information on everybody's life would help us determine how diet, chemicals, smoke, and other environmental factors are affecting our tooth decay, miscarriages, cataracts, and other health issues.

You are not perfect

Most people believe that the human mind has only two possible conditions, either 1) mentally ill, or 2) healthy. I think it would be more useful to describe a human mind as a random jumble of genetic traits, and that everybody has at least one mental characteristic that we could describe as a "defect" or a "problem". I don't think it is sensible to describe anybody as having a perfect brain. Everybody is defective to some degree.

Furthermore, I think that a better understanding of the human mind would show us that many of the people that we admire for having wonderful qualities are actually suffering from some mental problems. For example, I suspect that all of the billionaires have some type of mental problem. Perhaps some of them have an obsession with status, and perhaps some have an obsession with gathering material items. Some may be suffering from low self-esteem and are trying to prove to themselves and the rest of us that they are better than us.

No society considers a billionaire to be suffering from OCD or a mental illness because so many people wish they were billionaires, but how is a person who spends his life gathering excessive amounts of material items any less neurotic than a person who cleans his home excessively? How is a person who has a house that is so large that he needs servants to help him maintain it any less neurotic than an obese person who is so fat that he needs a servant to provide him with food and personal hygiene?

Have you noticed that virtually every human collects items that he has no use for? We refer to these items as knickknacks, mementos, souvenirs, conversation pieces, ornaments, and bric-a-brac. However, there are subtle differences between our collections:

• Some people have only a few items neatly arranged in their home, and at the other extreme are people who have collected so many items that they are in disorganized piles.

• Some people collect items that they are emotionally attracted to, whereas other people collect items to impress other people. To rephrase that, some people are decorating their homes with art, whereas others are displaying status items that are intended to impress or intimidate other people.

The people who collect items to decorate their homes are making the world more attractive for everybody. When you visit one of those people, their home will be attractive, and they will focus on you, not the items that they have collected. You can "socialize" with those people.

By comparison, when you visit people who have an obsession with status items, they want to impress or intimidate you with their items. It's a slightly different, and less pleasant, experience.

Some of the people who collect status items insist on collecting items that are illegal or dangerous, such as elephant tusk ivory or dangerous weapons. They don't care if the item is illegal. They are not collecting items for their decorative value. They are trying to feel as if they are important people.

When a person cleans something excessively, we describe him as suffering from OCD, but are the people who collect status items any less neurotic? Why not describe the people who collect status items as having an obsession with status?

Instead of being impressed by those people, we ought to wonder why they have an intense craving for status. Why are they always showing off? Are they suffering from low self-esteem? If so, why?

It's also interesting to consider the similarities and differences between a billionaire and a hoarder. When a person has collected more items than he can store in his house in an orderly manner, the items become disorganized piles that interfere with his life. We describe those people as "hoarders".

Some people have enormous mounds of trash in their house, and many people describe them as hoarders, but I would not describe them as hoarders because they are not collecting or saving the items. They are simply discarding trash in their home. They would be better described as extremely sloppy. Of course, some of the hoarders might be slobs also, causing them to accumulate both trash and items that they want.

In addition to collecting items, we also save items that we refer to as having a sentimental value. These are items that trigger memories of our past. Examples are baby shoes, wedding dresses, ticket stubs, photographs, and love letters. These items often have no meaning to anybody except the owner, so they are usually placed in drawers or closets. The exceptions are items which also have artistic or status value, such as some photographs or art objects.

The people who have saved so many sentimental items that their house is cluttered with them are also referred to as hoarders, but they are not collecting or hoarding items. They have a different problem. They are having trouble discarding items that became a part of their life, and it seems to be because their life is unhappy and lonely. They seem to use some items from their past like a drug to trigger pleasant memories. Also, because they are lonely, they seem to develop an emotional attachment to many of the items that they come into contact with, and they don't want to discard one of their "friends". We need a different word to describe them other than "hoarder".

If we define a hoarder as a person who collects more material items than he can store, then a lot of people could be described as "borderline hoarders" because they have collected more items than they can store in their house and have to put the excess into their attic, closets, garage, or basement. Their house appears to belong to a normal person, but their garage, closets, or attic looks like it belongs to a hoarder.

What is the difference between the mind of a hoarder and the mind of a person, such as Jay Leno, who has collected more than 100 cars and 50 motorcycles? One obvious difference is that people like Jay Leno have an ability to suppress their desire to collect items as soon as they run out of space to store the items.

However, there seems be more to the issue than that. The wealthy people seem to collect items that they can use for status, whereas most of the hoarders give me the impression that they are saving items because they have fantasies of using the items in future projects. (If you are not familiar with hoarders, here is one video from British television. I find the British television shows to be a bit more intelligent, and the camera doesn't jerk around so much.)

None of the hoarders seem to be collecting status symbols, or trying to impress us with their collections. They seem to be collecting items because they are titillated by the fantasy of how they will use the item in some wonderful project. However, due to some mental disorder, they either do not start the project, or they don't complete the project.

Hoarders are attracted to the fantasy of creating things, but not to the work required to create the item. We could describe this as wanting the benefits of an activity, but not wanting the responsibility of the activity, or wanting to play but not to work. So, instead of completing a project, they put the item aside, and then they titillate themselves with the fantasy of using some other item in some other project.

Although hoarders and billionaires collect items for different reasons, I would describe both groups as having mental problems. Both groups end up with more items than they can use, and neither group can remember what they have collected. Burglars could steal some of their items without either group noticing the theft. Also, neither group would suffer as a result of the theft because they don't need or use the items. All they do is collect items.

Society benefits when people create collections of items for schools, restaurants, social clubs, and museums, but we are wasting our labor and resources when we provide people with status objects, or when we allow people to collect more items than they have a use for.

Our primitive ancestors would show off to one another by displaying their jewelry, tools, clothing, and other items, but in this modern world, it would be more sensible for humans to impress one another with their contributions to society. Instead of admiring people who have a collection of status items, we should wonder why those people have such a craving to show off. What is their problem? Are they more like monkeys than modern humans?

Why did you develop into the adult that you are?

As children grow up, they begin wondering what to do with their life. Children fantasize about all sorts of activities, but only a small percentage of the population actually makes a serious attempt to become government officials or billionaires.

I don't think people pick a path to follow in a random manner. In other words, government officials and billionaires are not a random sample of the human population. There is something different about the people who struggle to become billionaires and government officials, and that difference may not be admirable. It may be a psychotic difference. For example, some of them may have as much trouble resisting fame and wealth as Hayley has resisting the urge to sterilize items with bleach.

You might benefit by reading about or watching a video about Prader Willi syndrome. The interesting aspect of this genetic defect is that it's victims are almost permanently hungry. Since the victims of this disorder also have some level of mental retardation, they have trouble controlling their consumption of food, so they must be kept away from food or else they will eat until their stomach bursts, which will kill them. Some of them have already died when they acquired access to a large amount of food.

All humans experience hunger, and if we could measure everybody's hunger levels, we would discover that our hunger emotion follows a bell curve, with most people experiencing "average" cravings for food. However, the people with Prader Willi syndrome have a level of hunger that is beyond the range for a normal human because they are not normal; their brain is defective.

I would expect this concept to apply to other emotions, such as our craving for material items, status, sex, and babies. For example, all of us have a craving to collect material items, and if we could measure that level, we would find that most people have an "average" craving. The people who are at one extreme of the bell curve would have an intense craving, and that could significantly affect what they choose to do with their life. They might be the most likely to become business executives, government officials, investors, bankers, gamblers, con artists, or crime network members. They might also be the most likely to marry a person simply to get access to his material wealth.

Now consider the possibility that there are genetic disorders similar to Prader Willi syndrome, except that instead of causing a person to experience endless hunger, it causes a person to have an endless craving for material wealth, status, babies, or sex. If anybody has that type of defect, they would experience cravings that are beyond the normal range for humans. They would never be able to satisfy their cravings no matter what they did.

During prehistoric times, a person whose cravings were inappropriate for their environment either died or were less successful in reproduction. Today we have to pass judgment on who is showing appropriate mental qualities, and we must restrict reproduction to the people with those better qualities.

We have a natural tendency to worship and mimic people who are high in the social hierarchy, such as wealthy people, but we should instead control our emotions and push ourselves into analyzing their mental characteristics and pass judgment on whether they are truly admirable people. I think a serious analysis of them would show that they have undesirable mental qualities.

Human minds must become better quality

It was tolerable for our prehistoric ancestors to have intellectual and emotional problems because they didn't have to do much with their mind. Their body was more important. A savage only has to be capable of feeding himself, reproducing, and raising babies. It does not matter if a savage occasionally hallucinates, or suffers from ringing in his ears, or if he gets dreams mixed up with reality, or if he has an intense craving for status or material items.

Actually, many of the obsessions that people suffer from today would have been an advantage during prehistoric times. The most obvious example are the men who have obsessions with sex, and who have so much difficulty controlling themselves that they want to rape women. Those men would have had an advantage over the men who wanted to treat women with respect. This would explain why male animals, not just humans, often try to rape females.

An obsession with cleanliness would have pushed a primitive savage into keeping his clothing, tools, hands, and children clean and orderly. An obsession with material wealth would have pushed a savage into making tools, clothing, and baskets. An obsession with status would have resulted in a savage doing things to impress the other savages.

If obsessions were a danger to our primitive ancestors, then they would have disappeared from the human gene pool. The fact that obsessions are so common is a sign that our ancestors were benefiting from them. In this modern world, however, humans need a higher quality mind. The people with obsessions and low self-control are wasting their life, wasting resources, and sometimes causing trouble for society.

For example, if it turns out that bleach fumes are dangerous, then people such as Hayley are causing trouble for their neighbors by exposing them to "secondhand bleach fumes". Imagine living in a densely populated apartment complex in which many of the women are using bleach all throughout the day. And imagine that other women are using ammonia, and others are burning incense, and others are spraying air fresheners. In a densely populated area, people have to be concerned with what they are putting into the atmosphere.

Humans must now control reproduction to create people who are better suited to this new world. People today must be able to learn a skill; have a certain level of intelligence; speak clearly; follow laws; and work in highly organized teams.

Many people complain that school or jobs are boring, but an activity is boring only if it is incompatible with your particular mental and physical characteristics. If a person cannot be happy with any of the jobs, that is a sign that his mind is designed for a primitive life, not this modern world.

Once humans start controlling reproduction, the future generations will eventually love living in a modern city, going to school, and working in an office. If they were transported back in time to a prehistoric tribe, they would consider it boring and monotonous to spend every day chasing after pigs with a sharp stick. There are a lot of men today who enjoy hunting animals, but eventually that desire will be replaced with a desire for more modern activities, such as building robots that raise pigs and then cut them up into porkchops.

Prehistoric men would often work together to hunt animals, but their teams were informal compared to the businesses of today. Our primitive ancestors were independent people, not employees or servants. None of the men could be fired, and none of them had to worry about time clocks or performance reviews. A prehistoric human focused on himself, not on his society.

The women in prehistoric times were even more independent than the men. When the men left each morning to go hunting or make tools, each woman was on her own to take care of herself and her children. The women didn't have to follow orders from anybody, or worry about lunch breaks.

During the past few thousand years, jobs and activities have changed dramatically, but we have not yet fully adapted to these changes. Also, some people are better adapted to modern life than others. The end result is that even though none of us are truly satisfied with this modern world, some people have more trouble than others with school, jobs, following orders, obeying laws, and dealing with modern relationships.

Some people dump their trash wherever they please; some men rape women and children; some women steal babies; some people vandalize objects when they are angry; and many people steal items. We like to feel sorry for the misfits, but if we don't restrict reproduction to the people who are better adapted to this modern world, we are going to make the situation worse. When we allow the misfits to reproduce, we create more people who don't fit into this modern world. The misfits suffer throughout their lives, and they often cause trouble for other people.

When people complain that school or jobs are boring, or that it's difficult for them to resist raping, stealing, or cheating, we should consider them to be unfit for reproduction. Those people are most likely to create more children who hate school, hate jobs, become criminals, and fantasize about suicide. We are torturing a person for his entire life if we give life to a child who doesn't have the ability to enjoy the modern world. Ideally, we would give life only to children who are physically and mentally healthy, and who will enjoy modern society.

Incidentally, a database of humans would help us determine if there are any differences between the obsessions of men and women, heterosexuals and homosexuals, different races, and different ages. For example, I would expect more women to be obsessed with cleanliness, and men to be more likely to be obsessed with putting things in their proper order.

The database could also help us determine the differences between the races. Are some races complaining more often about certain types of jobs? Do some races have more trouble with certain types of school courses? Do some races violate certain laws more often than other races?

Elliott Rodger and mental problems
On 23 May 2014, about 2 miles away from my home, Elliott Rodger killed 6 people and wounded 13 others. This appears to be another Jewish false flag operation that failed, similar to the Boston marathon bombing, the Sandy Hook school massacre, and many other recent, bizarre events, but I don't want to speculate on that possibility. Rather, the incident shows a serious problem that every nation is suffering from. Specifically, no nation shows any concern about the mental health of its citizens, or their morale, or whether the people are enjoying their lives.

Farmers put a lot of effort into keeping their plants and animals in good health, and the managers of factories put effort into ensuring that their assembly lines are producing high-quality products. By comparison, there is no concern about the quality of humans.

Women around the world are giving birth to children every day, but nobody cares whether those children are healthy or retarded. Nobody cares whether those babies will grow up to have pleasant lives or become a destructive menace to society. Nobody even cares whether women want their babies. Women are allowed to put their unwanted children up for adoption, and in some nations they can simply abandon the child in the street, just as Americans abandon millions of unwanted pets every year.

Our lack of concern about the quality of a person's life is causing us to live among people who are suffering from mental illness, loneliness, unemployment, and physical disorders. The most severely mentally ill are living in our streets or a mental institution, but the less psychotic are living in our neighborhoods, going to school with us, and working with us.

By doing nothing about the mentally ill people, we allow them to commit crimes, join together in crime networks, instigate wars, get elected to government positions, get into our police departments, become business executives, start charities, and become church officials.

Some people might respond that we are not doing nothing; that every nation has been struggling to help the mentally ill people by providing them with counseling and psychiatry. Yes, every nation is indeed trying to help the mentally ill people, but their attempts are failures, and they follow the same failed policies year after year rather than experiment with new policies. They might as well do nothing. Elliott Roger apparently had the same attitude. In his biography he wrote,

...Dr. Sophy ended up giving me the same useless advice that every other psychiatrist, psychologist, and counsellor had given me in the past. I don't know why my parents wasted money on therapy...
(A PDF file of his biography is here)
An astrologer might be trying to help us, but he might as well do nothing since we don't benefit from his predictions.

The social scientists are not helping us to understand the human mind or any of our social problems, and they have failed to bring improvements to government systems, school systems, holiday celebrations, and all other social issues. They are as worthless as astrologists.

Many people had known for years that Elliot Rodger was suffering from some serious mental disorders, but no society cares that there are mentally ill people living in our neighborhoods, going to school with us, and working with us.

If we were to consider a city as a team of people, and if we demanded that every person in the city be a contributing team member, then the police would have been able to evict Rodger from society. The police could show evidence that Rodger is not contributing anything of value; he is a disruptive influence; he is a social misfit; he is lowering morale; and his intense anger and envy makes him a potentially dangerous individual.

The concept of allowing a government to evict the misfits would frighten many people. Two reasons are:

1) There is no scientific way to determine who is a misfit, so government officials will have to make the decision. If the government is dominated by religious fanatics, they might evict people of different religions. A government that is under the control of Jews would be able to evict people like me for being hateful, anti-Semitic, and spreading false accusations.

Before a society can raise standards for its citizens and evict the misfits, the people must be capable of providing themselves with a respectable government that operates in the open rather than in secrecy.

2) Many people realize that their children would classify as misfits, and they don't want their children to be evicted. They want us to tolerate their children, but why should we?

If any society could provide itself with a respectable government, then they could set high standards for its citizens, and they could send the misfits to some other city, or to the City of Misfits if nobody wanted them. The misfits would be able to continue their life, but without bothering the rest of us.

Those misfits might not enjoy life as much as compared to when they live with us, but we would have a more pleasant life. We can't please everybody. We have to make a decision about who is going to benefit, and who is going to suffer. Should the healthy people suffer so that the mentally ill people can enjoy our company? I don't think so.

Rodger reacted to problems with anger and envy

In his videos and biography, he frequently complains that he is lonely, and that both men and women ignore him. (One video is here) He was unhappy with his lonely life, and he reacted by trying to figure out why he was so lonely. Since he had been given lots of money by his parents, he knew that he was not suffering from poverty, and since his parents had provided him with an education, he knew that he was not suffering from ignorance, either. So, why was he lonely?

Rather than face the possibility that he was a psychotic freak that nobody wanted, he came to the conclusion that the other people were monsters who were deliberately torturing him. His arrogance was too extreme for him to consider the possibility that he had an undesirable personality. He assumed that he was a wonderful person. He assumed other people, especially women, were the source of his problem, and he reacted by hating other people.

Nobody made him angry. He worked himself into a state of anger as he tried to understand his misery. This can make you wonder, what would he have been like if he had been born into a working-class family?

If he had been born into a working-class family, he would have had the same extreme arrogance, and the same mental disorders. He would have had the same lonely, miserable life. However, when he contemplated his misery, he would have noticed that women prefer men with wealth. He would have come to the conclusion that women are ignoring him because aristocrats are selfishly taking most of the money for themselves. Instead of fantasizing about killing women and couples, I suspect that he would fantasize about killing rich people. He might be tempted to join the Communist Party.

Society should take responsibility for Rodger's anger

Although nobody actually did anything to hurt Rodger directly, we could say that society is indirectly to blame for his anger because everybody ignored him.

All of us are ignored by some people, and all of us are occasionally insulted, but when a person is ignored by everybody, we could describe the situation as tormenting a misfit. Society gave him life, but treated him like a piece of trash.

America is full of people who are treated like trash. There are thousands of children in orphanages and mental hospitals that nobody wants, and we could say that we are tormenting those children. We are further tormenting the orphans when we allow government officials and other people to rape them.

If the conservatives were successful in stopping abortion, then every year America would give birth to another million unwanted children. And since aborted children have lower quality minds, as a group, than ordinary children, it would significantly increase the number of people who are miserable and troublesome.

We also allow immigrants into the nation regardless of whether they fit into our society. The end result is that some immigrants become lonely, miserable people. We could say that society is tormenting them by letting them into a society that they don't belong in.

We are not helping ourselves when we blame Elliott Rodger, orphans, and other misfits for their violent outbursts, crimes, and bizarre behavior. However, when we put the responsibility for their behavior onto society, then our government becomes responsible for ensuring that our society is a team of people who work together for the benefit of everybody. The government becomes responsible for identifying the misfits and troublemakers, and either evicting them or restricting them.

Businesses should not torment misfits, either

These concepts apply to businesses, orchestras, and other organizations. In the world today, most people believe that businesses and other organizations should not be allowed to discriminate when hiring members. The end result is that many businesses hire an employee who nobody wants as a member, and those misfit employees are either ignored or treated like trash. We should describe this as tormenting the misfits, and it is also tormenting the people who have to work with the misfits.

If a misfit employee has a violent outburst after years of being ignored by the other employees, we will not help ourselves by blaming the misfit. It would make more sense to change our attitudes towards life and tell all organizations that they are responsible for maintaining their morale. They should not accept members that they don't truly want. We should consider an organization to be cruel and under inappropriate leadership if they accept members that they treat like trash. That type of organization also causes trouble for society because the people in the organization are part of society, so their fights, low morale, and other problems can affect other people outside of their organization.

Neighbors should not torment one another, either

This concept also applies to neighborhoods. In the world today, neighborhoods are not allowed to discriminate against who lives in their neighborhood, and the end result is that many of us are living among people we ignore, fear, or hate. We are tormenting one another with this philosophy. Every neighborhood should be allowed to choose who they want to live with, and evict the people they don't want.

In a free enterprise system, this policy would be impractical because of the difficulty and expense of moving from one home to another, but in a City of Castles, in which people can freely move without any concerns about selling or purchasing homes, it would be easy to allow each of the castles to evict the people they don't want.

We are living with mentally ill people

Since none of us are perfect, all of us are living and working among mentally defective people. A society needs some type of quality control so that it can pass judgment on which citizens have mental problems that are beyond the tolerable threshold, and need to be evicted or restricted.
Trying to figure out who among us is too mentally ill to live with us will not be easy. For example, at, where Jews regularly post propaganda to cover up their crimes, Aaron Bradley showed some support for Rodger. If you were a leader in the quality control division of the government, would you recommend that he be evicted, restricted, or considered to be within the acceptable limits? Of course, you don't have enough information about him to make a sensible decision, but this is just an example to encourage you to think about this issue. Take a look at a message he posted (he refers to Rodger as the "shooter"). It began:
Grieving UCSB Sorority Slut proves shooter's point

This photo that is being splashed across newspapers nationwide, proves the shooter's point! Sorority sluts are causing men to lose their minds at college campuses. I went thru this myself at UCSD -- these girls don't put out, most of them are lesbians, but they strut around campus exposing themselves knowing full well they are torturing the men. There is absolutely no way to keep your mind focused on studies unless you are a monk or are fortunate enough to have a highschool girlfriend that puts out regularly

Aaron Bradley believes that college girls are supposed to "put out". If you have a sister or daughter in college, have you told her that one of her responsibilities is to "put out"? Although men are attracted to that philosophy, would you want men in leadership positions promoting that philosophy?

Somebody who looked at UCSB_sorority_slut.jpg asked what was wrong with the photo, and Aaron replied:

The chick in the middle has her panties exposed... click the link and look at the photo, its clear as day.
When other people still did not understand what he was complaining about, he wrote:
She is wearing flesh colored panties...but you can see them.
When Aaron looks at that photo, he sees a "sorority slut" who is wearing flesh colored panties and deliberately torturing men with sexual titillation. If you are a man, is that what you see? And if you are a man, and if you attended a college, did you consider the women to be "Sorority sluts who were causing men to lose their minds"? Did you find it impossible to concentrate on your schoolwork?

Perhaps Aaron has an unusually strong craving for sex, or perhaps he has a lower level of self-control, or perhaps his mind just doesn't do a good job of thinking. Whatever his problem is, he is not well suited to this modern world. Ideally, every man would enjoy this world, not feel as if he is being sexually tormented every day by women.

All humans encounter very similar problems during our lives. We all see material items that appeal to us; every man encounters a woman that he is attracted to; every woman encounters a baby that titillates her; and each of us is occasionally insulted or criticized. However, each of us react to these events in a slightly different manner because we have different intellectual and emotional qualities.

To complicate the issue, our reaction to a particular situation is not always the same each time. Our reactions change according to our emotional condition, or "mood". Our mood can be affected by how much sleep we have had; whether an illness or allergy is making us feel miserable; and whether we have been irritated by somebody. A simple example of how our mood can affect our reaction is that when we are hungry, we have a significantly more difficult time resisting food compared to when we are not hungry.

If we had the ability to read people's thoughts, we would discover that every boy in school regularly encounters girls that titillate his emotions. However, we would discover that each boy has a slightly different reaction to the stimulation. Some boys calmly and quickly deal with it without any trouble, whereas others struggle to control their sexual thoughts. Some boys are so unable to control their cravings that they pester the girls with idiotic remarks, or look for opportunities to get the girls drunk, or look for opportunities to rape the girls. Some boys react by becoming angry at the girls for torturing boys with sexual titillation and not "putting out".

If we could read people's thoughts, we would find that men have slightly different reactions to children, also. For example, we would find that some men are sexually aroused by young boys. Of those men, we would find that some of them are quietly suppressing their cravings, while other men look for opportunities to touch the boys. William Vahey went even further by tricking young boys into consuming sleeping pills. What would you think if a man told you:

I can understand why William Vahey and other teachers become pedophiles. These children don't put out. They strut about the school, exposing themselves, knowing full well that they are torturing the teachers. There is absolutely no way to keep your mind focused on teaching unless you are a monk, or are fortunate enough to have a young friend who puts out regularly.
Now consider how this concept applies to women. They don't have much of an interest in sex, but they have an intense craving for babies. All women are titillated by babies, but they react slightly differently when they see a baby that they are attracted to. Some women keep their craving under control and treat the mother and baby with respect, but some women have a difficult time resisting their urge to grab and kiss the baby, and some women have a difficult time giving the baby back to the mother after they pick it up.

Some women have trouble resisting their craving to steal a baby, and a few women have gone even further and cut open a pregnant woman to steal her fetus. What would you think if you met a woman who told you:

I can understand why Effie Goodson cut open Carolyn Simpson and stole her fetus. These pregnant women don't give us babies. They keep all their children for themselves. They strut about, showing off their big belly, knowing full well that they are torturing women without children.
If we could read minds, we would find that there are a lot of people among us who are regularly experiencing extreme levels of anger, hatred, self-pity, and envy. These people are being tortured by living in a society that they cannot truly fit into. We need to pass judgment on which of these people are beyond the tolerable threshold for reproduction, and which of them have such unacceptable minds that they need to be removed from society.

Be responsible for your behavior

Now consider the differences and similarities between an obese person and Aaron Bradley. Many obese people realize that they are eating excessively, and they often become upset with themselves for not having the self-control that they wish they had. Many of them struggle to control themselves with various diets, and sometimes they seek help from other people, such as by joining weight-loss organizations, or by asking for gastric bypass surgery.

By comparison, Aaron Bradley was not upset with himself. He did not consider himself to be suffering from a mental problem. As a result, he had no desire to understand what his mental problem was, or to seek help from other people, such as joining Sex Maniacs Anonymous, or by asking a doctor if he was suffering from some type of hormone, kidney, or blood disorder that was interfering with the way his mind was working.

Instead of considering the possibility that his misery was the result of some internal problem, he assumed that women were torturing him, and he became angry at women. His reaction is equivalent to an obese person who becomes angry at the employees of McDonald's and Coca-Cola.

Rodger may have had abnormally intense levels of envy

In his biography, Rodger mentions an incident in which he was sitting alone at a Starbucks cafe and saw a couple kissing each other. He became very angry and envious. When they got up to go to their car, he followed them, tossed the rest of his coffee on them, and then ran away. He wanted to hurt people who didn't even know of his existence simply because they were kissing in front of him.

If we could measure everybody's level of envy, we might find that Rodger was at the extreme end of the bell curve. Ideally, everybody in society would analyze themselves to determine their characteristics, and try to keep their problems under control, but arrogant people cannot look critically at themselves. Rodger was aware that he was envious of other people, but he didn't consider it to be a problem.

He described his envy as if he was describing the color of his hair. He wasn't ashamed or embarrassed of his envy. In one of his videos he is sitting alone in his car at the beach and making angry remarks about how he is suffering because there is a couple on the beach who are kissing, and he is furious that he doesn't have a girlfriend. He gave this video the title: "My reaction to seeing a young couple at the beach, Envy"

Next time you see a man sitting alone in a public shopping center or in his car, consider the possibility that he similar to Rodger, and that he is thinking angry, envious thoughts about you or other people, and that he is fantasizing about torturing or killing you.

However, don't assume that only single men are potentially dangerous. Some psychotic people have friends. For example, a few hours after Elliot Rodger allegedly went on his killing spree, three women in Stockton, California complained to the police that a man shot at them after they refused to have sex with him and his friends.

Gangs of psychos are much more dangerous than individuals. Unfortunately, no nation shows any concern about stopping gangs. Do you care about gangs? If so, do you care enough to experiment with removing the troublemakers from society?

If you are a man, there was certainly a time in your life when you wished that you had a girlfriend. How did you react when you saw couples kissing each other? Did you react with hatred, envy, or anger? Did you cry or pout?

There were also times in your life when you saw a man who had something else that you wished you had, such as a house, automobile, or a particular job. How did you react when you saw those men? Did you hate them? Did you throw your coffee on them?

None of us enjoy seeing somebody with something that we wish we had, but we react differently to that unpleasant situation. Some people keep their emotions under control, other people become angry, some become violent, and some look for ways to cheat to get what they want.

Destructive people should be removed, not ignored

If the police had seen Rodger throw coffee on the couple that kissed in front of him, they probably would have scolded him rather than arrested him, and the couple that he threw coffee on would probably have told the police that it was too insignificant for them to file a complaint.

I suggest we change our attitude towards disruptive behavior. At the moment, every nation is giving crimes a rating according to the amount of damage that resulted from the crime. For example, if a person steals a low-priced item, he is considered to be committing less of a crime than a person who steals an expensive item. A father who kills his retarded baby is considered to be committing a crime that is much more serious than a man who rapes a child.

Crimes should be analyzed according to their effect on society, and what they tell us about the person's mind. I would say that a person who throws coffee on somebody simply because he is envious of them is showing undesirable and disruptive mental qualities. I would say those type of people should be evicted.

People who hurt one another are more dangerous to society than a person who has trouble controlling his craving to steal a material item. When we tolerate people who hurt other people, we create a society in which we are afraid of one another.

By comparison, a father who has intelligent reasons for killing his retarded baby is doing society a favor, and sparing himself and other people from the burden of caring for a retard. He is also sparing his retarded child a life of misery. I would not consider that to be a crime.

When we judge people according to their effect on society, and when we remove those who are disruptive, we create the equivalent of a human garden in which everybody can enjoy the people they live with, and children don't need to be taught to be afraid of strangers.

Why did I react differently than Rodger?

As I mentioned years ago (here), during eighth grade I noticed that I was losing my physical abilities. By the end of high school, my body was very weak, and even though my emotions wanted to get married, whenever I met a woman who started showing an interest in me, it would cause me to think about supporting and caring for a wife and children, and that would cause me to back away. My body was too weak to want to deal with the responsibilities of a family.

Throughout most of my life, I didn't feel healthy, but I couldn't figure out what was wrong. It wasn't until 2011 that I discovered I was low on thyroid hormones. That has turned out to be my primary problem. Today I feel so good that I suppose I feel what "normal" people feel. If I wasn't so old, I would look forward to getting married and having a family.

I would say that most of my teenage years and adult life was wasted as a result of my lack of energy and feeling unhealthy. I regularly encountered men who were in good physical health and living the type of life that I wanted, and I could have reacted by hating them, becoming intensely envious of them, and throwing coffee on them, but I spent most of my life wondering what was wrong with me. I wasn't interested in hurting other people. I was interested in making my life better. I also spent a lot of time wondering how to improve our cities, government systems, and school systems. I wanted life to be better for everybody, not just me.

By comparison, when Rodger saw a man living the type of life that he wished for, he reacted with incredible levels of anger and envy. Why did Rodger react differently than me? Because we have different brains, and my primary problem was a physical disorder, not a mental disorder.

People with physical problems have trouble functioning properly in society, but if our brain is designed properly, we will not hate the world or throw coffee on people who are enjoying life. It is the people with the seriously defective brains who cause trouble for us, not the people with allergies, hormone problems, digestive problems, or crippled legs.

What type of husband would Rodger have been if he had been married? His tendency to blame his misery on other people, and then fantasize about hurting those people, causes me to suspect that if he had been married, he would have been unpleasant as a husband, and if his wife wanted a divorce, he would have become angry with her. I don't think he would have considered the possibility that his personality was horrible.

In 2007, Carmen Tarleton was attacked by her husband who believed that she was involved with another man. He poured lye onto her face, causing so much damage that she was given a face transplant.

People should be allowed to defend themselves from attack, but nobody should be allowed to attack a person simply because life is not giving him what he wants. People who react to problems in life with anger, envy, or violence are analogous to bombs that could explode at any moment. They should be evicted. We should not live in fear of one another.

It's also interesting to consider what Rodger would have been like if he had been elected to a government office. I suspect that if anybody irritated him, he would use his authority to get revenge on them, even if those people had no idea of who he was. He might seek revenge on people simply because they had enjoyed life in front of him.

Or what if Rodger had been born female? In such a case, instead of whining about being a virgin, she would whine about not having children and not being popular. I suspect that she would have been angry and envious of the popular women and the women who had children.

Imagine a mild case of Elliot Rodger's problems

Now consider what Rodger's life might have been if his mental disorder was a bit less severe. In such a case, his envy and anger would have been less intense, and his antisocial behavior would have been less disgusting. This would have made him less repulsive to other people, and that could have allowed him to find a few friends and a wife. Since his parents were willing to give him large amounts of money, it would have been easy for him to start a business, purchase a business, or get involved with Hollywood or government. Therefore, it would have been easier for him to become an influential person in American society.

What type of business executive, government official, or Hollywood director would Rodger have become if his mental problems had been a bit less intense? The reason I suggest you consider this is because I think he would resemble a lot of the people that we currently find in leadership positions.

For example, the envy and hatred that Rodger shows reminds me of the way the Jews treat Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Bill Cosby, George Clooney, and Beyonce. Bruce Lee supposedly died in an accident, but I suspect that he was murdered by people (probably Jews in the entertainment business) who were envious of him. The Jews also seemed to be intensely envious of Michael Jackson and Whitney Houston.

As I mentioned years ago (here), after I created my video about 9/11, Jews were whining incessantly about how my voice was awful. I assumed they were trying to turn people away from my video, but after noticing how many Jews have whiny voices and have trouble pronouncing words (for example, Jason Bermas), I wonder if part of the reason they were complaining about my voice was because they were envious of my voice.

I think that many people in leadership positions show an abnormal level of anger, envy, and hatred. For three examples:

 • The leaders of North Korea and mainland China spend a lot of time hating foreign nations and whining about being abused, unappreciated, and insulted. If you were the leader of a nation, would you spend that much time whining and hating?

 • Many business leaders encourage their employees to consider their competitors as enemies to cheat, steal from, and destroy rather than as friends to compete with and inspire. If you owned a business, would you have that much anger towards your competitors?

 • Some football players were offered bonuses to inflict physical injuries on competing players. That behavior isn't much better than the leaders of crime networks who regularly pay their members to kill, beat, and hurt their competitors. If you managed a sports team, would you offer such bonuses?

A lot of people in leadership positions also show incredible levels of arrogance and selfishness, or crude, animal-like characteristics, depending upon how you want to look at it. For example, have you heard Corey Feldman complain in a television interview that pedophilia is rampant in Hollywood?

If he is correct, there is only one way to explain how it can go on year after year, even after people know about it; namely, there are a lot of people in leadership positions in Hollywood, the local police, the FBI, and the government who are protecting pedophiles. And many of the victims would rather remain quiet. Although Rodger was not a pedophile, the point I am trying to make is that many of the people in leadership positions are showing undesirable mental qualities.

A pedophile who pushes children into sex is not much different from a man who rapes a woman, or a person who steals an item. All of these people are trying to satisfy themselves with no concern for what other people want.

A lot of the people in leadership positions seem to have this characteristic of grabing at whatever they want. Since this is typical animal behavior, it is not necessarily a "mental disorder". These people may simply be more similar to an animal than the rest of us.

However, even though some abusive people may be in good mental health, we need to pass judgment on whether their mental qualities are appropriate for this modern world. A monkey might be in excellent mental health for his particular species, but that doesn't justify letting the monkey live with us.

Some of the people in leadership positions give me the impression that they are never satisfied with life. They never seem to have enough money, their homes are never large enough, and there are never enough people who respect them. These people might be suffering from emotional cravings that are far more intense than they should be, thereby preventing them from being satisfied. These people may never actually enjoy their life.

If we could measure all aspects of a person's mind, I think that we would discover that many of the people who dominate the world have low quality minds. Some might have what we would describe as "mental defects", and others might simply be more similar to an animal, but regardless of what their problem is, I think we would come to the conclusion that they do not have admirable minds. I think many of them need to be restricted from leadership positions, and some of them need to be evicted from society.

I don't think many of the people in leadership positions are even capable of having a "normal" conversation with other people. They seem to be too arrogant, antisocial, angry, and self-centered. When they are forced to appear at a congressional meeting, their behavior reminds me of a frightened prisoner, or a caged animal, not a leader for a modern society. When they get together with other people for parties or dinners, it seems to be primarily to show off, not to socialize or have interesting conversations.

Elliott Rodger was completely focused on himself. He had no concern for the quality of other people's lives. Actually, he didn't want other people to be happy. He was having a miserable life, and his reaction was that everybody else should be miserable, also. He even fantasized about killing his younger brother simply to prevent his younger brother from "surpassing" him, which I assume means that he did not want his younger brother to have a more pleasant life. In his biography, he wrote:

I will drive down to my father's house to kill my little brother, denying him of the chance to grow up to surpass me, along with my stepmother Soumaya, as she will be in the way.
I have personally encountered people who wished other people were miserable simply because they were unhappy, although they were not as extreme as Rodger. People with this personality trait are detrimental to society. Even if they don't make any attempt to kill us or hurt us, they are a nuisance because they reduce morale. They are unpleasant people to be around. Instead of being like flowers and evoking pleasant feelings in us, they irritate us. They are dirt in a transmission.

In this article, the author tells parents that if they have "troubled teens", they shouldn't be concerned because a recent study shows that many successful entrepreneurs had undesirable behavior as teenagers, such as cheating and shoplifting. That article assumes that the wealthy entrepreneurs are admirable people, but I suspect that the behavioral problems that they showed as a teenager are one of the reasons that they became wealthy entrepreneurs. I think we would create a much better world if we put different people in control of businesses, governments, schools, and other organizations. I don't think we should be looking to the "troubled teens" for leadership.

Why do our leaders focus on mansions rather than cities?

Have you noticed that people in leadership positions in business, government, charities, churches, the media, and the schools show no interest in developing wonderful cities, or better transportation systems, or better school systems?

Our leaders are focused on providing themselves with gigantic mansions that are isolated from us. None of them are advocating the development of planned, advanced cities because they don't have any interest in such cities. They want a gigantic mansion on a gigantic plot of land, and they want to be secluded from us.

When I was a teenager, I would fantasize about building better cities, advanced farms, and better transportation systems, and I wondered why some of the billionaires were not helping to fund this type of activity. If I had been a billionaire, that's what I would have done with my money. I assumed that most people had just never spent the time thinking about what our future could be, and that if I had a chance to explain what we could be doing, they would change course and start on the development of a better society.

I have since come to the conclusion that our leaders don't fantasize about wonderful cities because they don't want to live or work with us. They don't want to be a "team member". They want to be Kings and Queens. They don't regard us as "friends". They regard us as peasants to pamper them and work for them. They are behaving like selfish, antisocial freaks, not as mentally healthy, sociable humans who can provide leadership for this modern world.

Years ago I mentioned that Michelle Obama attracts a lot of attention whenever she is around other people in leadership positions. Most of the people in top leadership positions have a miserable, dreary, or angry personality, but we don't notice how bizarre those people are because they avoid contact with normal people. They usually associate only with other miserable people in leadership positions. We don't realize how bizarre those people are until we see them around people with more desirable personalities.

Because humans are just a variation of a monkey, we have a natural desire to overlook the bizarre personality characteristics of people in leadership positions. If a poor, ugly, fat person were to show the same mental traits as Bill Gates, George Soros, the leaders of North Korea, or the monarchs of Europe, we would refer to him as neurotic, crude, embarrassing, stupid, dishonest, selfish, or abusive. When a person is high in the social hierarchy, our emotions assume that he is a better person than us, and so we admire his qualities, even if they are disgusting qualities. If he was a "troubled teen", then we assume that it must be good to be a troubled teen.

We must exert control over our crude emotions and force ourselves to treat our leaders as employees. We must stop ourselves from getting down on our hands and knees and worshiping them. We need to seriously analyze the people in leadership positions and pass judgment on their leadership abilities and their value to society.

We inadvertently encourage arrogance

Aside from a few exceptions, such as Josef Fritzl, parents show a concern for the quality of their children's lives. Parents do not want to see any of their children lonely, suffering from bicycle accidents, or becoming damaged by toxic chemicals. Parents put an effort into helping their children to get exercise, eat a proper diet, learn about life, maintain good health, learn a useful skill, and have a pleasant life.

If our leaders had the attitude of parents, then they would be concerned that everybody is a team member, and that everybody enjoys life. They would not want anybody to be lonely, suffering from accidents, damaged by toxic waste, sickly, or unemployed. Our leaders would be working with us to make life better for everybody.

It is important to note that this concept applies to everybody in society, not just our leaders. The citizens should also be team members who work with other people to help make society better for us all.

Unfortunately, the free enterprise system does not encourage citizens to be team members. Businesses are encouraged to make money with no regard to the consequences, and the end result is that businesses pander to the citizens. Businessmen essentially get on their hands and knees and struggle to titillate, entertain, and excite the citizens. For example, some businesses have devised silly slogans to titillate our arrogance, such as, "The customer knows what's best", and "The customer is King", and "The customer is #1". Businesses are inadvertently encouraging citizens to become arrogant jerks.

A democracy also encourages the citizens to be arrogant by promoting the philosophy that the government is a group of submissive representatives who serve the people, and that the schools, charities, and other organizations also serve the people.

The end result of a free enterprise system and a democracy is that most citizens develop the attitude that they are special people who should be treated like Kings and Queens by businesses, government officials, charities, schools, and other organizations, but they don't feel any responsibility to contribute to society.

We further encourage arrogance by conducting polls to find out what the majority of people are thinking, thereby implying that the opinions of the majority of people are valuable. In reality, most people are sheep who follow other people. Most people are frightened of changes, and don't want to experiment with anything new. None of their thoughts are original, so there is no sense in asking them what they think.

Asking the majority of people what they think is as useless as asking a group of fish where they are traveling to. The fish have no idea where they are going; they just follow each other.

In America, the citizens have become so arrogant and selfish that they have pressured teachers into giving good grades to virtually all students. Almost no American student gets C grades, which is average. The average American student is above average, according to the schools. This makes no sense, but most people don't care.

It is acceptable, actually it is desirable, for parents to review the performance of teachers and schools, and if they disagree with what a teacher is doing, it is desirable for them to provide an intelligent analysis of the situation. However, that is not what parents are doing. Parents are selfishly demanding that their children be pampered. They are behaving like medieval Kings and Queens.

Another example of the arrogance and selfishness of the citizens is that when a lot of people are unemployed, some of the citizens complain that the government should do something to help them find jobs. Some citizens will participate in angry demonstrations during which they demand that the government fix the economic problems.

Since we grew up with the attitude that the government should help us find jobs, it may seem strange that I'm describing citizens as arrogant and selfish when they demand the government to help them find a job, but keep in mind that a democratic government is supposed to be a group of submissive servants. A government of submissive representatives does not have the responsibility to fix economic problems, or do anything else. The voters are supposed to tell their representatives what to do with the economy. The government representatives are supposed to listen to the citizens and give the citizens what they ask for.

Therefore, when America experiences economic problems, the citizens are supposed to get together and figure out what sort of economic policies they want, and then they tell their submissive representatives to implement those policies.

To make this situation more ridiculous, the American government was deliberately designed to prevent any official from having much authority, so even if some of our government officials wanted to do something to help the nation, they don't have the authority to do it.

The situation becomes even more absurd when you consider that many of the citizens will regularly whine about government officials who are serving "special interests". This is absurd because the American government was deliberately designed to be a group of submissive servants who are supposed to give their particular supporters whatever they ask for.

The American government officials are not supposed to be independent leaders who do what they think is best for the nation. They are supposed to do what they are told, and only by their supporters, not by some other group of people. They are supposed to represent the particular group of people that helped them get elected. They are not supposed to represent people who did not help them get elected. It is ridiculous for the citizens to complain that government officials are doing what their particular supporters are asking for.

Most people are so overwhelmed that they don't realize it

The majority of people don't have enough intelligence to understand a government of representatives, a free enterprise system, evolution, religion, or many of the other issues that we have to deal with in this modern world. They are overwhelmed with the complexity of modern life. Unfortunately, they don't understand that they are overwhelmed. They insist that they are super geniuses who know everything about the universe.

The citizens are also hypocritical. For example, they insist that they are so educated and intelligent that they should be allowed to vote, and that they be allowed to influence the nation's policies for abortion, euthanasia, and other issues, but when we experience problems that they don't want to deal with, such as economic problems, they want to push the problem onto the government and complain that the government is supposed to solve the problem.

The attitude of the citizens is appalling; the concept of a government of submissive representatives is idiotic, and the concept of businesses that pander to the people is also stupid. Instead of continuing on this miserable path in life, we should experiment with more appropriate attitudes, and a more sensible government and economic system.

Nobody should be a King or a peasant

A more appropriate philosophy is that everybody in society is a team member, including the government officials; that nobody is a peasant or a King; and that nobody's child deserves special treatment.

Instead of encouraging arrogance, everybody should be told to experiment with different activities in order to discover their abilities and limitations; get involved with the jobs and social activities that they can do properly; and stay out of the activities that they cannot contribute to.

Everybody should find something to do that we will appreciate. If a person cannot do a good job of voting, or doesn't want to put any effort into voting, then he should recognize his limitation and refrain from trying to influence our leadership. If a person has no interest in dealing with economic problems, or is unable to contribute anything of value to economic issues, then he should be aware of that limitation and refrain from telling us what to do with the economy.

If we create a new city and restrict it to people who can follow that philosophy, then we will create a city that operates like a group of friends. Nobody would behave like a King or Queen, or expect somebody else to be his peasant. Everybody would want to do something that other people appreciate. They would also have a concern that everybody else is enjoying their life.

Most important of all, just as friends will push aside a person who is disruptive to the group, everybody in this city would help to maintain a friendly social environment by removing or suppressing the people who were miserable, mentally ill, destructive, angry, or secretive.

It might seem contradictory to claim that the environment would be "friendly" while at the same time saying that they would evict or suppress people, but the only way to create a garden is to remove the creatures that are undesirable. Remember the expression, No pain, no gain.

Most people need to keep their mouth shut

We must change our attitudes towards humans. People are not a perfect creation of a god. Every person is just a random collection of genetic traits, and each of us can be described as being "defective" or "imperfect" to some degree.

Furthermore, our genetic traits were designed for a prehistoric life, so none of us are truly adapted to this modern world. If we could measure how well adapted a person is, I suspect that the majority of people are below the threshold necessary to maintain a modern society properly. There is no city or nation anywhere that is dealing with its problems effectively. Every city is a disorganized mess of homes and businesses, unwanted pets and unwanted children, crime networks, lonely people, drug addicts, pollution, and garbage.

The problems that we see in the world are not due to poverty or the devil. It is the result of billions of people who spend almost all of their time trying to please themselves with food, babies, material items, status, and sex. They don't want to spend any of their time dealing with society's problems. Furthermore, most of them don't have the emotional or intellectual characteristics necessary to deal with our problems even if they wanted to.

If the majority of people would recognize the fact that they don't have the desire or ability to deal with society's problems, and if they would voluntarily keep their mouth shut and let the rest of us deal with the problems, then we would be able to start developing better cities, better economic systems, and a better government system. However, as of today, the majority of people are so arrogant that they believe they should control the future of the human race.

The attitude all around the world is that the majority of people are wonderful, and that our problems are the result of a minority of badly behaved people. This is true, to a certain extent. For example, when we look at crime and corruption, we find that the majority of people are honest, and that the crime is coming from a minority of the population. So, from the point of view of crime, the majority of people are indeed honest, wonderful people.

However, if we look at why we are not able to reduce crime, improve our governments, or develop better cities, we find that the majority of people are interfering with progress in a variety of ways. For example, the majority of people put up resistance to improvements because they want to follow traditions rather than experiment with changes. They are frightened of the unknown.

Also, their limited intellectual ability, extreme arrogance, and low interest in thinking and research causes them to argue incessantly over abortion, religion, euthanasia, and other issues. Their arguments today over abortion are virtually identical to the arguments they were having 20 years earlier. They never research the issue of abortion, and they don't listen to what other people are saying, so they never learn anything new about abortion. They simply repeat the same arguments over and over. They never reach any intelligent conclusions.

The majority of people are like a ball and chain around our legs. They might be honest, and they might be friendly, but they are inhibiting progress. In order for us to develop better cities, a new economic system, and other social improvements, the majority of people must be convinced to keep their mouth shut and let the rest of us experiment with culture.

All of the wonderful aspects of modern society came from individuals who walked away from the majority and began experimenting with new ideas and activities. None of those individuals got assistance, or even emotional support, from the majority of people. Progress came from people who were ignored by the majority, and sometimes harassed.

The majority of people are nice, but we have to stop treating them as if they are intelligent, responsible members of modern society. Most of them are essentially a primitive savage in a world that is beyond their understanding. Another example is their reaction to the evidence that Jews staged the 9/11 attack and demolished the World Trade Center buildings with explosives. That evidence has been available to the world for more than a decade, but the majority of people are still trying to ignore the information. Problems cannot be solved by people who hide from them. This is not the behavior of a responsible member of modern society. This is the behavior of an animal or a primitive savage.

Two common excuses that people give for ignoring the evidence that Jews staged the 9/11 attack are, 1) they are too busy to do anything about the issue, or 2) they are just an ordinary person who has no influence in the world. However, these are just excuses to ignore the problem and continue behaving like a selfish monkey.

1) Nobody is too busy to contribute to society.

Nobody is too busy to help. For example, everybody is capable of educating other people about our problems. The ordinary people can easily find hours a day to spend on idiotic discussions about Lady Gaga, President Obama, abortion, guns, religion, children, food, Muslims, and thousands of other issues. If they were willing to spend a small portion of their time educating their friends and coworkers about how we have been lied to about the 9/11 attack, they could educate most of the entire world in a matter of days.

I mentioned an example a few years ago; specifically, when Janet Jackson exposed one of her nipples during a football game, the information and photo spread around the world so rapidly that hundreds of millions of people knew about it within a few days. That was proof that the ordinary people are not too busy to spread information. However, they will spread information only about nipples, farts, Lady Gaga, and other issues that they find entertaining.

2) Ordinary people are not helpless
The majority of people insist that they cannot do anything about crime or corruption because they are just "ordinary" people with no influence over the world. However, those "helpless" people spend a lot of their time pressuring their friends, government officials, and coworkers into supporting or opposing abortion, guns, President Obama, vegetarianism, the killing of wild horses, and marijuana. Some of them participate in demonstrations in the streets; some make phone calls to government officials; and some participate in local meetings.

It should be obvious that the majority of people claim to be helpless only with the issues that they don't want to deal with.

This photo shows people in Norway who got together in their streets to cry and pout as a result of the bombing attributed to Anders Breivik.
(I mentioned it here).

Those people would claim to be too helpless and too busy to deal with Israel, teenage gangs, and corrupt government officials, but they are not too helpless or busy to spend hours crying in the streets and lighting candles.

It should be obvious that the ordinary people are hypocrites. They claim to be super geniuses with lots of leisure time to vote and create policies for abortion and euthanasia, but they claim to be too busy and too helpless to deal with problems that they are not interested in.

The majority of people are not helpless, and they are not too busy to participate in society. They simply don't want to participate. They don't even have the ability to participate, so there is no point in encouraging them to participate. Their reaction to problems is crude and worthless. It's better to tell them to keep their mouth shut.

Are some races more arrogant than others?

An interesting aspect of Rodger's videos and biography is his extreme boasting. For example, near the end of his biography he writes:
Humanity has never accepted me among them, and now I know why. I am more than human. I am superior to them all. I am Elliot Rodger; Magnificent, glorious, supreme, eminent; Divine! I am the closest thing there is to a living god. Humanity is a disgusting, depraved, and evil species. It is my purpose to punish them all. I will purify the world of everything that is wrong with it.
Men have a very strong craving to climb to the top of the social hierarchy, be admired by other men, and impress women. I would bet that every man occasionally titillates himself with praise, such as by telling himself that he is highly educated, strong, talented, intelligent, or coordinated. Many men also occasionally boast to other people about their education, talent, strength, and coordination.

Women don't spend much time boasting, but I suspect that they occasionally titillate themselves with praise. However, I doubt if they praise their physical strength or education. Perhaps they praise their attractiveness, popularity, or nice personality.

If we had a database of everybody's life, including our thoughts, we would discover that each of us spends a different amount of time titillating ourselves with praise and boasting to other people. We would find that men spend more time on these activities than women, and we would find that some races boast more often than others.

The reason I found Rodger's boasting to be interesting is that it reminds me of how the Jews boast of their superiority. Some people explain the boasting of Jews as being due to their religion, but I don't think they are boasting because their religion teaches them that they are superior. Their religion teaches them to smear blood on their doorway at Passover, and to never cut the hair around their ears, but most Jews are ignoring those demands.

Religion is like a coloring book, as I described years ago here. Every Jew, Catholic, Buddhist, and Hindu picks out the attitudes and activities that he is attracted to, and he ignores the attitudes and activities that he doesn't like. Most Jews do not like the idea of putting blood on their doorway at Passover, so they disregard that activity, but they are attracted to the concept that they are the superior race, so they follow that concept.

It is virtually impossible for every race to coincidentally develop the exact same arrogance. Some race must be the most arrogant of all. I am only familiar with the races that are here in America, and of them, Jews seem to be the most arrogant. I have never seen any other race spend so much time boasting about themselves.

However, not everybody who boasts or titillates himself with praise is arrogant. Some people do it because they are suffering from low self-esteem, or having a miserable life, or failing at their goals. These people boast to make themselves feel better.

Therefore, some Jews might spend a lot of time boasting because they feel inadequate because of their ugly face, their whiny voice, and the fact that they can only be successful by cheating, plagiarism, murder, blackmail, and intimidation.

Or, perhaps Jews boast more than everybody else because of both problems. Specifically, they may be more arrogant than everybody else, and at the same time, they may be suffering from feelings of inadequacy.

Are we too incompetent to participate in our health care?
Millions of people besides me need thyroid hormones, and we need to take them every day for the rest of our lives. That provides a very large market for thyroid hormones. There are millions of other people who need other medical drugs. Ideally, we would be able to order the drugs online, but our government requires us to get a doctor's prescription.

To make the situation more absurd, the prescriptions cannot provide more than one year's worth of medicine. This means that at least once a year, millions of us must drive to a doctor's office, pay him a fee simply to scribble a few lines on a piece of paper, and then drive to a pharmacy to get the prescription filled. All of that driving is wasting a lot of time, fuel, clean air, and other resources.

In a previous file, I pointed out that California government officials have prohibited us from having our blood analyzed on our own, or for the laboratory to give us the results. We must pay a doctor to give us authorization for a blood test, and then we travel to a laboratory to pay for the blood test, and then we have to travel back to the doctor and pay him to tell us the results.

Imagine if our government officials had imposed these restrictions on diabetics. Instead of allowing a person to measure his own blood sugar level, and instead of allowing each diabetic to determine for himself whether he needs insulin, and how much insulin to take, imagine that every time a diabetic wanted his blood tested, he had to travel to a doctor's office to pay for a blood test authorization form, and then he had to travel to a laboratory and pay for the test, and then he had to travel back to the doctor and pay him another fee to get the results of the blood test.

We should be able to use a Star Trek "Tricorder"

Scientists have developed a lot of equipment for measuring our medical condition. For example, there are devices that can measure anti-bodies, hormone levels, white blood cells, and blood pressure. However, most of the equipment is bulky and expensive. Some exceptions are the devices that can measure blood sugar, pulse, and blood pressure. Those devices are so small that they are portable.

In the Star Trek fantasy, the doctors have a tiny "medical tricorder" that can analyze a person's medical condition. Eventually we will have the technology to create tiny devices that can measure our hormone levels, kidney functions, digestion, lungs, and immune system. This will make it easy for people to monitor their health, even as they are exercising or riding a bicycle.

Should we be prohibited from using medical devices to analyze ourselves?
However, if anybody purchased a Star Trek "Tricorder" for his own use, and especially if he allowed his friends to use it, he would be arrested for practicing medicine without a license. This would undoubtedly result in criminals selling these devices illegally, and thousands of people would be in jail for using or selling them.

In the Star Trek show, only the Doctor McCoy uses the medical tricorder, but they were so simple to use that everybody could have used them, including children. As with our government officials, the writers for the Star Trek shows promote the concept that we are too incompetent to do our own medical analysis.

It should be noted that I agree with the government officials and Star Trek writers that the majority of Americans are too dumb and irresponsible to properly use a Star Trek tricorder. Most people have trouble controlling their spending of money, their temper, their consumption of alcohol, and their consumption of food. Millions of people can't even refrain from shoplifting or stealing towels from hotels. Even wealthy "celebrities" have trouble resisting the urge to shoplift. Incidentally, that list is almost entirely women. Are women more likely to shoplift than men?

Furthermore, businesses regularly lie and exaggerate about their medical devices and drugs, as Howard Leventhal recently did, and this dishonesty makes it even more difficult for us to deal with medical issues because we have to waste some of our time trying to figure out which information is honest.

Will a fine or jail make Leventhal more honest?
Although I agree that most people cannot do a good job of maintaining their health, one significant difference between my philosophy and that of the government officials is that I think we should design society for the high quality people, whereas the government officials want to design society to give special pampering to the mentally incompetent and the criminals.

Another significant difference between my philosophy and that of most other people is that every nation is trying to cure it's badly behaved people with punishments or Bible studies, but I think we need to prohibit the badly behaved people from leadership positions, and evict some of them.

Furthermore, governments have hypocritical policies. They consider us too irresponsible, uneducated, and stupid to participate in our healthcare and handle medical drugs, while at the same time promoting the attitude that we should be able to vote because we are responsible, educated, and intelligent.

A more sensible policy is to put restrictions only on the people who are too irresponsible to handle freedom. Give everybody access to drugs, and other items, and only the people who waste or abuse the items should be put under restrictions.

Government officials must justify policies

I don't believe that our government officials put any effort into developing a sensible policy for medical drugs. They restricted prescriptions to a one year supply of medicine, but what does the Earth's rotation around the sun have to do with our medical needs? I don't think the government officials researched the issue and came to the conclusion that one year is coincidentally the most optimum limit for medicines. I suspect that this policy was the idea of doctors or pharmaceutical companies, and the purpose was to help them make more money, not to help us.

Scientists analyze the theories of other scientists, and if they disagree with any aspect of a theory, they will ask for clarification or point out the mistake. Of course, there are exceptions to everything, such as when scientists lie about 9/11, carbon taxes, the Apollo moon landing, and certain other issues. Aside from the issues that they lie about, if a scientist were to repeatedly show faulty reasoning, he would develop a reputation for being incompetent, and unless he was working for the government or a university, he would be fired.

We must follow the same concept with government officials. Every official must be required to provide supporting evidence for all of their policies. Since government policies are opinions rather than mathematical equations, the only way this system will work is if a significant percentage of the intelligent members of society stop behaving like sheep and get involved with society once in a while. We need more of the intelligent people to occasionally participate in reviews of government officials and their policies.

Some Americans might respond that we already have this type of system in America. The members of Congress, for example, must present their proposals to the nation, and then they discuss them. However, the system our government is using is not the same as what the scientists are using.

Since these systems are intangible, some people have trouble understanding how the procedures that the scientists use can be more effective than the procedures that government officials are using. It might help to first understand how subtle differences in the procedures that we use to make chicken soup can have a significant effect on the final product.

If a person makes chicken soup by putting all of the ingredients, including salt, into a pan of water, and then cooks it, his soup will be slightly inferior to a person who doesn't put salt into the soup until the soup is ready to serve. To a person who doesn't understand osmosis, it will make no difference if the salt is added before cooking or after cooking, but there will be a subtle difference between soups made by those two procedures.

The same concept applies to manufacturing. Subtle differences in the procedures that workers follow to create a diesel engine can make the difference in the quality of the engine.

The concept also applies to safety procedures that are used by industries, airlines, and schools. An organization that has more effective safety procedures will have slightly fewer accidents.

If you can understand the concept I described years ago (here) about how culture is "social technology", and that it is analogous to computer software, then you should realize that the procedures that we use to accomplish a task is analogous to a software program. The reason some software programs are easier to use, faster, and more effective is because they have a better set of instructions than the other programs.

The procedures that scientists use to analyze one another might seem to be the same as what the government officials are using, but there is a difference between those procedures. That difference allows the scientists to do a better job of identifying and removing the incompetent scientists and the idiotic theories.

Scientists do not have a perfect system, of course, as you can see every time one of them lies about carbon taxes or the Apollo moon landing, but scientists are doing a better job of maintaining the quality of scientists and scientific research than the government officials are doing in maintaining the quality of government officials and government policies.

If nobody had ever bothered to put effort into improving the software programs of the 1980s, we would still be using those same software programs. If we want progress with something, we have to experiment with improvements.

Although our government has expanded significantly since 1781, our government officials are still using the same crude procedures for presenting and analyzing policies. They have not improved their procedures in the past 200 years. By comparison, businesses have made numerous improvements to the procedures that they use to raise chickens, produce steel, and make clothing. As a result, the government is still as ineffective as it was in 1781, but businesses are becoming increasingly better at manufacturing.

Our government still allows filibusters as a method of resolving disputes. This technique has been in practice with government officials since ancient Rome. The engineers at IBM would never use filibusters to resolve technical issues, and scientists would never use it to resolve their differences. Husbands and wives don't use filibusters to resolve their personal disputes.

Imagine that you develop an extremely confusing medical problem, such as those shown in the TV show, Mystery Diagnosis. Imagine a group of doctors in a conference room discussing what your problem could be, and how they should treat it, and one of the doctors starts a filibuster. How would you feel if that is how your doctors were resolving your medical problem? We could create comedy shows by having other professions behave like government officials.

All organizations have disputes on a regular basis, but only government officials believe that filibusters are an effective method of resolving those differences. They have no evidence to support their theory that filibusters are useful, but they allow filibusters anyway. Government officials are free to do whatever they please, even if they cannot justify their actions. They cannot be held accountable for anything they do.

We are never going to improve our government unless we start experimenting with changes to it. If we continue to ignore these issues and do nothing, everything will remain as it is right now.

Imagine government officials being scrutinized

There would be a dramatic change in governments if we could review their policies in the same serious manner that scientists review one another, and if we could replace the officials who consistently do the worst job. For example, in May 2014 China installed an oil rig in an area of the ocean near Vietnam where the two nations are arguing over who owns that part of the ocean. Imagine if the Chinese officials had to first present this policy to the nation and get a critical review of it.

In such a case, even if only a fraction of the intelligent Chinese population decided to participate in reviewing the proposal, there would be a lot of intelligent analyses of the proposal. For example:

• Some Chinese citizens might analyze the amount of labor and resources the nation needs to build and operate that oil rig, and they would demand that the government show evidence that the oil rig is one of the better projects for the nation to work on. They would point out that their nation has tremendous problems with pollution, ugly cities, traffic congestion, unemployment, hunger, primitive farming technology, primitive industrial machinery, crime, and primitive schools, and they would demand that the government show that an oil rig is going to provide greater benefits to the nation than dealing with those other problems.

• Some Chinese citizens might point out that nobody in China is suffering from a shortage of oil, and that China can purchase oil from other nations whenever they please. They would complain that they have more important problems to put the labor and resources into.

• Some Chinese citizens might point out that they can make significant reductions in the nation's consumption of oil in a variety of ways, such as providing homes and buildings with better insulation; designing cities so that the people can use trains and bicycles; and by making products that are easier to recycle. They would point out that reducing the need for oil is better in the long run than drilling for more oil.

If the Chinese government had to justify that oil rig to thousands of intelligent Chinese citizens, I think they would fail. I would bet that there would be a lot of citizens who would show that there are much more useful projects for the nation to work on.

If the Chinese people were also able to regularly replace the worst performing leaders, then some of the citizens who devised the more intelligent proposals could replace the incompetent government officials. After many years of these replacements, the Chinese people would end up with a very impressive government.

If every government official was under as much scrutiny as a scientist, and if we could continuously replace the worst performing government officials, every nation would eventually end up with officials who are so talented that we have trouble finding flaws in their reasoning. We would end up with government officials who put a lot of effort into studying society's problems and developing policies that benefit everybody. Those officials would impress the entire world, not just their own citizens.

We need more efficiency, not more resources

The Chinese government believes that by acquiring more oil, they will improve their nation. This attitude is common all around the world. All throughout my life I have heard Americans, mainly those who call themselves "conservatives", whining that the government is hurting the nation by restricting or prohibiting oil exploration in national parks and certain other areas. They believe that by acquiring more oil, America will improve.

This attitude also occurs with food, water, steel, aluminum, and other resources. Every nation promotes the philosophy that by acquiring more resources, life will improve for their citizens. Almost nobody promotes the philosophy that by redesigning houses, cities, transportation systems, office buildings, and schools, we can reduce our consumption of resources. We can also save resources by getting rid of prescriptions and letting people order medical drugs by mail order.

Some people claim that by spraying soluble fertilizers onto the leaves of plants, the plants will absorb more of the fertilizer compared to when we put the fertilizer into the dirt. Is that true? If so, we would be able to significantly reduce fertilizer production by spraying fertilizer onto plants rather than putting it into the dirt. The reduction in fertilizer consumption would also help some of our rivers. Unfortunately, in a free enterprise system, businesses want to sell more fertilizer, not figure out how to use less fertilizer.

Ideally, our government officials would be looking for ways to make our society more efficient, but they don't have any interest in using fertilizer more efficiently, or reducing the waste in food, or reducing the need for iron ore. Every official seems more interested in eliminating his competitors, acquiring a gigantic mansion, and increasing his salary.

The lives of the Chinese people are not going to improve simply by building oil rigs. No matter how much oil they produce, they are going to continue suffering from pollution, overcrowding, ugly cities, corruption, crime, primitive industries, and people who spit in the streets. They need to put some effort into providing themselves with better government officials, better city planning, better transportation systems, and reductions in pollution.

Every government official, business executive, and other influential person, should be held accountable for the policies that they create, support, and oppose. We should analyze their policies and pass judgment on which policy provides advantages that outweigh its disadvantages. The officials who support the policies that are more detrimental than beneficial should be replaced so that somebody else can try their talents. We must stop tolerating incompetence in the government, businesses, schools, and other organizations.

The business executives, doctors, and government officials who support the concept of prescriptions for medical drugs, and who want to prohibit us from being able to test our blood whenever we want, should be required to show us evidence that these policies have helped us. They should show us who has benefited from these policies, how they have benefited, and how those benefits outweigh the disadvantage of forcing millions of people to travel back and forth between doctor's offices, laboratories, and pharmacies.

The nation is wasting energy and other resources by limiting medical drugs for one year and by requiring prescriptions for them, and it also increases traffic congestion and traffic accidents. By eliminating those restrictions, we could order drugs by mail-order. Since people are already traveling through our neighborhoods to deliver mail, it would not increase traffic to have them deliver medicines.

Imagine if our government limited prescriptions to only one month's worth of medicine. Or how about one week? Why not make the prescriptions good for only one day? That would force millions of us to travel to a doctor and a pharmacy every morning for our daily medication.

We should encourage alternative policies

One lesson that we should learn from the scientists who are pushing us into accepting carbon taxes is that we must encourage people to propose alternative policies. As I mentioned in a previous document (here), if scientists were serious about their global warming theories, then they would have considered alternatives to carbon taxes, but they are conveniently ignoring the fact that there are alternatives. They are trying to trick us into believing that there is only one solution; namely, carbon taxes.

Schools should teach children about this trick of conveniently forgetting to mention that there are alternatives. To prevent becoming a victim of it, we should encourage people to look for alternatives to every government policy. This would force the government officials to show that their policy is superior to the alternatives.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership
As of May 2014, America, Japan, and ten other nations are still struggling to agree on a "Trans-Pacific Partnership". The purpose of this partnership is to make it easier for the nations to engage in foreign trade.

Unfortunately, none of the government officials or businessmen are interested in designing policies that are the most sensible for the human race, or even what is best for their own nation. Instead, businesses are concerned with what is best for their particular business, and government officials are concerned with what will please their particular supporters.

The Japanese, for example, have been refusing to eliminate tariffs on rice, wheat, beef, pork, dairy products, and sugar because they want to protect the Japanese farmers who produce those items very inefficiently, and therefore, at an abnormally high price. The American government initially demanded that Japan get rid of tariffs on wheat and rice because the Americans assumed that they would be able to sell Japan more wheat and rice, but they later retracted that demand because they realized that if Japan eliminated tariffs, Canada and Australia would be able to sell wheat and rice to Japan. The American government believes that the American farmers will sell more wheat and rice if Japan maintain their existing tariffs.

The government officials who are involved in the TPP are not "leaders". They are not analyzing the issue of foreign trade or recommending policies that will improve life for us. Rather, each of them is trying to protect a few farmers and businessmen from competition.

The Asians who protect their rice farmers are especially inappropriate as leaders. Most of their rice farmers are incredibly inefficient because they are still planting and harvesting rice as their primitive ancestors did 5000 years ago.

The photo shows some students in Tokyo visiting a rice farm to learn how to plant rice. However, I would not describe this "learning how to plant rice". I would describe this as learning how prehistoric savages planted rice.

With modern technology, farmers do not have to spend hours a day in muddy fields to plant rice by hand. This crude method of growing rice is one of the reasons that Asian nations are suffering from poverty.

These school courses are suppressing the modernization of Asia. It is as detrimental as teaching engineering students to use the blacksmith technology of the Middle Ages.

Many people boast about protecting ancient traditions, but in this modern world, we have to think about everything we do. We must pass judgment on whether a prehistoric tradition will help us or hurt us. Some ancient traditions, such as celebrating birthdays, may be beneficial or harmless, but we are hurting ourselves when we encourage farms or businesses to use prehistoric technology.

The people who insist upon following ancient traditions with no regards to the consequences are equivalent to dirt in a transmission. It is especially absurd to put a person with that attitude in a leadership position because he will mimic primitive people rather than provide guidance for modern society.

Imagine if the American government created tariffs to protect farmers who were plowing fields with the techniques of the 1400s, as in the image below.
(The image is from the Très Riches Heures, which I described here.)

Incidentally, that picture shows a scarecrow that is holding a bow. Apparently, the people in the 1400s believed that by holding a bow, the birds would be more frightened!

On the street that I live on, a family put an artificial owl on the top of their roof in an attempt to keep the birds away. However, rather than frighten the birds, the birds like to sit on top of the owl because it is the tallest object on the roof, thereby giving them a better view of the area. We still don't understand birds very well, and businesses don't seem to care that these owls are worthless because they are still selling them.

Getting back to the issue of the people who want to follow traditions, all throughout history we find different groups of people struggling to resist new technology. If we had proper leadership, our government officials would be blazing a path into the future for us. They would comfort the people who are frightened of changes, and they would provide guidance to help people cope with the changes in life. Rather than encourage us to mimic dead people, they would encourage us to think about life, discuss issues, and look for ways to improve our future.

The Japanese should eat lamb and pork, not whales

Australia, New Zealand, America, and some other nations can produce beef, lamb, and certain other meat products at a much lower cost than the Japanese. Therefore, from the point of view of the Japanese people, they should have access to foreign meat. However, the Japanese government is restricting the importation of foreign meat in order to protect a few inefficient Japanese businesses.

Every nation needs to protect certain critical industries, but the tariffs that the Japanese government has imposed on food are not protecting vital industries. Rather, the tariffs are causing the Japanese people to suffer from abnormally high prices of beef, lamb, and certain other foods. This in turn reduces the amount of meat that the Japanese people can afford. This abusive policy is forcing the Japanese people to eat a lot of seaweed, rice, and whales.

The Japanese citizens should be furious that their government is denying them access to the low cost meat and other foods. They should complain that millions of Japanese people are suffering a miserable diet in order to allow a small number of Japanese to operate inefficient farms. The Japanese should also complain that the growth of some Japanese children has been stunted as a result of a diet that has an excessive amount of rice and seaweed.

Unfortunately, the Japanese people are like people everywhere; namely, following their emotional cravings just like a stupid monkey. Their primary concern is titillating their emotional cravings for food, sex, babies, status, and material items. They want to enjoy themselves, not analyze society and deal with its complex problems.

The Japanese government is not providing leadership, and none of the citizens are stepping forward to provide leadership. It would be nice if the leaders of other nations would stand up to the Japanese government and tell them something like, "Stop your excessive hunting of whales and fish, and start importing meat! Do what is best for Japan, rather than protect a few small businesses that you don't need!"

Unfortunately, no nation would dare reprimand the Japanese government for having idiotic, destructive policies because every other nation also has idiotic and destructive policies.

For example, the American government has imposed some policies that are the opposite of a tariff. Specifically, instead of protecting the American hemp farmers with tariffs on hemp, the American government does the exact opposite; American farmers are prohibited from growing hemp, thereby forcing American manufacturers to import hemp from Canada and other nations. This bizarre policy helps Canadian farmers, not American farmers.

If the Americans were actively involved in maintaining their society, they would be disgusted with their government and its policies, but the Americans are as sheep-like as the Japanese.

Some American government officials would respond that their prohibition of hemp is actually helping America. They would point out that if they allowed hemp farming, some of the farmers would hide marijuana plants among the hemp plants. However, I don't consider that reasoning to be valid. First of all, Canada has been dealing with this issue, and if they can deal with it, why can't we?

Second, the police reports about people being arrested for growing and importing marijuana should make it obvious that there is a phenomenal consumption of marijuana in America. This in turn should make you wonder, if a few farmers decided to add to the production of marijuana, would their production even be significant? Would they have any effect on marijuana prices, availability, or consumption?

Third, and most important, I think it is idiotic to believe that we can stop drug use by making some drugs illegal and restricting others to a doctor's prescription. We should experiment with other policies, as I suggested here.

Why can Japan impress us with robots but not rice farming?

Every year the Japanese impress us with their latest improvements to robots, cameras, automobiles, and rockets, but they are not impressing anybody with their latest achievements in language, eating utensils, school systems, or agriculture. Actually, they haven't made any improvements to their eating utensils for 5000 years. They made a few improvements to their written language, but it is still an incredibly crude, burdensome language.

Why are the Japanese capable of bringing impressive improvements to LCD displays but not eating utensils? Why are Japanese automobile manufacturers capable of impressing us with advanced automobiles that are built with advanced robots, while Japanese farmers are walking barefoot in muddy fields and using their hands to plant rice?

I think the reason is because their ancestors didn't have automobiles or LCD displays. Therefore, when the Japanese have to design automobiles and LCD displays, they cannot mimic their ancestors. They are on their own to explore this new technology. They have to find their own path in life for these particular issues.

By comparison, their ancestors have been using language, chopsticks, and certain other products for centuries, and since the Japanese are under intense pressure to mimic their ancestors, they discourage critical analyses and improvements to those particular items.

The fact that the Japanese are capable of developing robots and other technology is a sign that they have the intellectual talent to think, research, experiment, and discuss issues. Therefore, they should be capable of developing impressive government systems, school systems, eating utensils, clothing styles, and other cultural activities. However, doing so requires that they change their attitude towards life. They must be capable of disregarding the pressure to follow their ancestors, and find the emotional strength to explore the future on their own.

If the Japanese people could fill their government with men who have the ability to look critically at their culture and experiment with changes, then the Japanese government would consist of a group of leaders and explorers who help the nation look for ways to improve their society.

Most people in every nation could be described as living in a "cultural prison" as a result of their fear of the unknown. They are like frightened animals who are huddling together. They mimic their ancestors rather than explore their future, and they are terrified at the thought of experimenting with changes to their society. They are prisoners who remain in their cell voluntarily because they are afraid of stepping outside.

Some Japanese farmers have the ability to use mechanical methods of planting and harvesting rice, and a few Japanese people have recently found the emotional strength to experiment with methods of growing rice by planting seeds rather than by placing seedlings in mud. This is proof that at least some of the Japanese people have the intellectual and emotional capability to look critically at their culture and experiment with improvements, at least in the area of rice farming.

Unfortunately, those particular Japanese people are not in leadership positions. Japan is still dominated by sheeple who are too emotionally weak to look critically at their society, and too frightened of the unknown to explore their future.

We should not feel sorry for the Asians who spend hours a day planting rice in muddy fields. They are choosing to live that way. If, during the past few decades, the Japanese engineers had put as much effort into improving their farms as they put into improving robots and automobiles, then they would have impressive farms by now.

There is hunger, crime, rape, pollution, bribery, overcrowding, and thousands of other problems in every nation, and all of these problems can be traced to the stupid, selfish, irresponsible, and destructive manners in which humans are behaving. We are the cause of our problems. Our problems are not due to a lack of oil or a shortage of gold. Our problems are not due to poverty or the devil. Our problems are due to people who are behaving like primitive savages rather than modern humans.

The majority of people don't want to modernize their language, their educational system, their economic system, or their government. They refuse to deal with corrupt government officials, crime networks, and teenage gangs. The Americans are still refusing to adopt the metric system, and millions of people are refusing to abandon the practice of circumcision.

Most people don't want to think, learn, or explore. They want to spend their lives titillating themselves with food, babies, material items, status, drugs, and sex. They want the benefits of modern society, but none of the responsibilities.

The world is never going to improve as long as the people who dominate it are frightened of the unknown, intolerant of critical reviews, and too self-centered to be concerned about society. We must identify the people who have better intellectual and emotional qualities, and put them in leadership positions.

Design robots with your intelligence, not your emotions

I mentioned that the reason the Japanese can make impressive achievements with robots is because they are free to explore robot technology rather than pressured to mimic the robot technology of their ancestors. However, even though the robot engineers are free of their ancestors, each engineer is under pressure by his own emotions to design robots in a certain manner, and every business is under pressure to design robots that appease consumers.

The same concept applies to the engineers who develop artificial limbs. None of the engineers are under pressure to mimic the artificial limbs of their ancestors, but each engineer is under the pressure of his emotions, and of consumers. The end result of this pressure from consumers and our emotions is that engineers are often designing robots to resemble humans, and they tend to design artificial limbs to imitate real limbs.

It may seem strange for me to criticize robots and artificial limbs that resemble humans, but we don't have the technology to do it properly, and the end result is that we are producing inferior imitations, and the problem with that is that the inferior imitations are stimulating our emotions in an unpleasant manner.

When a person is missing a leg or arm, his emotions want a replacement that is identical to his real limb. Unfortunately, our technology is not advanced enough to allow us to make exact copies of real limbs. Our artificial legs look like retarded legs, and that inadvertently stimulates our emotions in an unpleasant way.

To understand why this happens, you must realize that animals and humans have a natural preference for certain colors, patterns, sounds, and smells. Our emotions are extremely concerned about the physical appearance of people, houses, clothing, and everything else. It is impossible for us to observe an object or a person from a neutral perspective. All animals and humans are always passing judgment on everything we see, hear, and smell. Everything we look at is analyzed to determine whether it is attractive, frightening, dreary, ugly, or abnormal.

It should be obvious as to why animals evolved this characteristic. An animal will not survive if it looks at world with a neutral frame of mind. An animal must constantly analyze the data from its sensory organs to determine whether there are predators in the area, whether there is food in the area, and whether a potential mate is nearby.

When we look at a person, rock, flower, or tree, we don't merely "look" at it. We "analyze" the data. This analysis allows us to identify predators, food, potential mates, family members, and friends.

Animals do not take reproductive partners at random. Although males are not very particular, the females are extremely particular. They want a male who show signs of being healthy and good-looking. The females who dominated the struggle for life were those who developed a craving for certain characteristics, such as physical strength, stamina, symmetrical bodies, and shiny fur. Animals and humans are repelled by creatures that are weak, ugly, filthy, non-symmetrical, and drab.

If you can understand that humans and animals have a natural dislike of ugly and defective creatures, then you can understand why we should change the way we are designing artificial limbs and robots. The technology of today cannot produce true imitations of humans. We are producing artificial limbs and robots that resemble retarded humans who have sickly skin, sickly hair, and sickly eyes. These artificial limbs and robots are stimulating the emotions that cause us to be repelled by ugly and defective people.

When we look at a person with an artificial limb, our mind has the intelligence to realize that he has an artificial limb, but our emotions cannot think. They are stimulated by the ugliness of the artificial limb, and that creates an unpleasant feeling. That in turn causes us to feel sorry for the person.

Our emotions want artificial limbs that look like real limbs, but we don't have the technology to do that. We must face the fact that it would be emotionally more pleasant for everybody if we created artificial limbs that are visually different from real limbs. They should be designed to be neutral, or pleasant. They should make a person look interesting, not like a retard.

The same concept applies to robots. We have an attraction to people, not to metallic objects, and so we prefer robots that look like humans. Unfortunately, we don't have the technology to do that. Furthermore, I don't think we should try to create robots that look like people. I think we should control our emotions and create robots according to our intellect.

The robots of today resemble retarded humans. The female robot in the photo above looks like it has Down Syndrome.
The robot above is emotionally more pleasant, but it has an expression that looks like it is confused or surprised. I would describe this as an inappropriate face for a robot.
Consumers have a craving for robots and artificial limbs that look like real humans, but we should not care what consumers want. We should ask ourselves, "What will provide us with the most pleasant life?"

This issue may not seem significant right now, but robots will become more common in the future, and people will encounter them on a regular basis both at work and during their leisure time. Do you want your encounters with robots to stimulate your emotional disgust of retards?

When we design sinks, gardens, factories, furniture, and other products, we should keep in mind that we have a natural aversion to certain images. I would describe the sink, in the photo to the right, as having an unpleasant design.

I don't think we benefit by being emotionally stimulated in an unpleasant manner by sinks, robots, or other devices. I think our lives will be more pleasant if we design our cities and products to be emotionally pleasing.

I think the ugliest part of most people, especially men, is their feet, and retarded feet are even uglier than normal feet.

Instead of designing artificial feet that look like retarded feet, we should design them to be visually pleasant, interchangeable, and functional.

I think the combination of a metallic leg connected to what looks like a retarded foot is emotionally and visually unpleasant.

Artificial legs, hands, arms, and feet should be more functional and emotionally pleasant.

For example, the springs that athletes wear have a more pleasant visual appearance, and apparently that design is also more functional, which is why athletes prefer it.

Some artificial legs could have flippers to allow a person to go swimming, and artificial arms could attach directly to power tools.

We could also design artificial limbs with storage areas for phones, medical monitoring devices, or water bottles, and they could be decorated with iridescent colors, or tiny lights.

Will any of us live to see proper leadership?
There may be a few men in our government who are doing a wonderful job as leader, but every nation seems to be dominated by government officials who exploit their authority to please their selfish cravings. They are not interested in improving society, providing guidance to us, or helping us to develop our talents. They focus on mansions, pampering by servants, eliminating competitors, and feeling important. They never provide us with intelligent analyses of our problems, or about life. Nothing they say is worth recording for the future generations.

How do we determine who among us is appropriate for a leadership position? What characteristics should we look for? What should a leader in this modern world actually do?

To begin with, consider what a military drill sergeant is supposed to do. His goal is to help his team improve their mental and physical condition and performance. He pushes them into doing physical and mental exercises, and he gives them guidance, advice, and constructive criticism, regardless of whether they want to hear it. He does not care whether the people like him, or want him as a friend. He does not give handouts to anybody, either. His goal is to help people to help themselves.

A drill sergeant spends his time trying to help his team become better. He does not exploit his team in order to please himself. For example, he does not make any attempt to convince his team to worship him, pamper him, provide him with material items, or build him a mansion. He works with his team, and for their benefit, not his. He does not sit on a throne and give orders.

People do not become drill sergeants because they are attracted to the salary or the fame. The men and women who enjoy that job get satisfaction in watching their team develop their talents. They enjoy helping people.

Of course, we could probably find some exceptions in which a person becomes a drill sergeant because he is miserable and wants to yell at people, but disregard the exceptions and consider applying the concept of a drill sergeant to government, businesses, schools, and other organizations.

Imagine government officials who have the attitude of a drill sergeant. In such a case, government officials would not be aloof Kings and Queens who use their authority to satisfy their personal cravings for material wealth, fame, and pampering. Instead, they would be a team member who was working with us, and for the purpose of making society better for everybody.

Our emotions want praise and compliments from our leaders, but a leader should give us what we need and benefit from; namely, guidance, intelligent analyses of life, and constructive criticism. Instead of looking for political candidates who make us feel good, we should look for candidates who have proven themselves capable of helping their team improve themselves and deal with their problems. A leader should also encourage beneficial attitudes, not hatred, envy, or pouting.

A leader should be blazing a path into our future, and comforting the people who are frightened of changes and experiments. Instead of suppressing criticism, sabotaging competitors, and encouraging people to be obedient slaves, a leader should encourage his team members to identify and develop their talents, experiment with different activities and ideas, and become an active participant in society.

Our leaders should have a better understanding of society's problems than the majority of people, and that would allow them to provide us with intelligent analyses of status symbols, schools, holiday celebrations, languages, and other cultural issues. It would also allow them to bring some sense to our cultural practices.

For an example of what a leader might do, he might decide to spend some time analyzing the concept that diamonds are a girl's best friend, and then he would provide us with an intelligent analysis of how the concept developed, what effect it has on human life and the planet, and what he suggests we do about it.

A leader would undoubtedly recommend terminating that practice forever on the grounds that it was just a trick by businesses to sell more diamonds, and that it has absolutely no benefit to human life.

Since most people have been convinced that diamonds are "luxuries" that make our lives more enjoyable, it might be easier for people to understand how idiotic the craving for diamonds is if they imagine businesses in Asia promoting powdered rhinoceros horns with the sales gimmick, "Rhinoceros horn powder is an Asian's best friend!"

There are already a lot of Asians who believe that powdered rhinoceros horns are an aphrodisiac, so imagine businesses taking advantage of that by encouraging the Asians to believe that when a man loves a woman, he provides her with a small vial of powdered rhinoceros horn. Imagine the Asian women becoming convinced that they should receive a vile when they are engaged, and when they are married, and for each of their anniversaries.

Imagine traveling to Asia for a vacation, and everywhere you go you find young girls fantasizing about being given a vial of powdered rhinoceros horn by their lover, and imagine men spending enormous amounts of money on the vials to give as gifts to women. Imagine seeing married Asian women everywhere you travel proudly displaying their viles of powdered rhinoceros horn, and boasting that their viles are a sign that their husband loves them. Imagine that the demand for rhinoceros horns is so great that many African nations start raising rhinoceroses merely to kill them and grind their horns into powder.

“Unicorn tears are a girl's best friend!”
You would probably consider the Asian people to be incredibly foolish, gullible, or ignorant, but how is a craving for diamonds any more sensible? What is the difference between an Asian who proudly displays a vial of powdered rhinoceros horn on a necklace, and an American who proudly displays a diamond on a necklace? What is the difference between Africans who are raising rhinoceroses for their horns, and Africans who are mining diamonds?

The cultural practices of our society seem sensible to us because we grew up with them, but if the human race can get control of its culture, then the people of the distant future will have a much more sensible society, and they will consider us to be a group of ignorant monkeys who were following idiotic customs, and who were regularly abused and manipulated by businesses, religions, and government officials.

Our irrational cravings also sometimes cause problems for us. For example, many men and women have wasted a significant portion of their savings on diamonds, gold, elephant tusk ivory, or powdered rhinoceros horns.

Our irrational cravings are also causing trouble for other species. For example, there are so many Asians craving rhinoceros horns, shark fin soup, elephant tusk ivory, and other animal products that those species are on the verge of extinction.

Should men give diamonds to women, or should we give them gold, rubies, or something else? Is there something special about ivory? Do people who have ivory objects have a better life than the rest of us? Should Christmas be celebrated with Christmas trees, or scenes of baby Jesus, or something else? What type of holidays should we celebrate, and how should we celebrate them? Are the Chinese correct that shark fin soup is a delicacy? Or are Americans correct that lobster is a delicacy? Or are truffles a delicacy? What is a "delicacy"? (I discussed the issue of delicacies in 2009 here.)

Ideally, our leaders would provide us with guidance and advice on cultural issues, but none of the people in leadership positions have anything intelligent to say about culture. Our leaders are as ignorant about culture as an ordinary person. Instead of providing us with guidance, every government allows businesses and religions to manipulate culture to sell products and promote religion.

Actually, our leaders are a bad influence on culture because their intense craving for mansions, diamonds, gold, yachts, land, and rubies is reinforcing the attitude that we will have a better life if we acquire more of those items.

When Napoleon was in a leadership position, there was a time when his most honored dinner guests were served meals on aluminum plates, whereas his less important guests had to suffer with gold or silver plates (of ourse, our history is full of lies and propaganda, so that may not be true). Napoleon may have been better-than-average at organizing and supervising soldiers, but Napoleon had nothing intelligent to say about the issue of status items, delicacies, hairstyles, recreational activities, sports, courtship activities, or other cultural issues. Instead, he behaved like a typical male monkey who would do anything he could think of to show off his status, intimidate other males, and impress the females. He reinforced the idiotic belief that aluminum, gold, and silver were special items for special people.

Does any school official care about his job?

In a previous document I mentioned a video documentary (here), about a Chinese man who traveled around China to convince poor people to enroll in the fraudulent Hongbo College. In that documentary, the man seems to justify his abusive behavior by pointing out that the students who enrolled in the college were not interested in getting an education. He implies that many of them realized that the college was a fraud, but they didn't care because all they wanted was a diploma.

Don't assume that China is the only nation that has a problem with dishonest schools. I would say that there are only five subtle differences between the Hongbo College and the colleges in America:

1) The Hongbo college was a total fraud, so 0% of the students learned something of value, whereas American colleges have a few useful courses, so perhaps 10% of the students get a useful education. The other 90% are wasting their time on entertainment, such as "David Beckham studies" and "Ufology".

2) The Hongbo college officials lied to prospective students about how their students were getting jobs as a result of their education, whereas the American College officials prefer to ignore or exaggerate the issue. The American colleges have employees to work on advertising and fundraising, but they don't have employees to analyze the students who graduate to determine whether their education has helped them in their jobs or their personal life. Our colleges are selling a product with no concern for its value.

3) The Hongbo college provided a worthless education, whereas some courses at American colleges are worse than worthless. Specifically, some courses promote lies about 9/11, Muslims, Nazis, Iran, the world wars, the Holocaust, the Apollo moon landing, sexuality, feminism, and many other issues. I would say that students who learned nothing at the Hongbo college were treated better than the students who are taught lies at an American college.

History could be a useful school course, but not when it has been distorted with Jewish lies. Engineering could be useful, also, but not when students are taught that Americans landed on the moon six times with technology from the 1960s. Science would be useful, but not when students are taught a distorted view of global warming that is intended to support the concept of carbon taxes.

4) The employees of the Hongbo knew that they were providing a fraudulent education, but 0% of them cared because 100% of them joined the school to make money, not to have the opportunity to educate students. Apparently 0% of the students cared, also, because 100% wanted a diploma, not an education.

By comparison, perhaps as much as 10% of the employees in the American colleges are interested in providing a useful education, and only 90% are doing the job to make money. Perhaps 15% of the American students are truly interested in getting an education, and the other 85% are only interested in getting a diploma, or finding a spouse, or delaying adulthood, or pacifying their parents who insist that they attend college in return for free rent and food.

5) The Hongbo College preyed on poor people who were looking for an easy way to get a high-paying job, whereas the American colleges prey on ordinary and wealthy people who are looking for an easy way of getting a high-paying job.

Every nation likes to boast that they are the greatest nation in the world, and the greatest people, but to an outside observer, all nations are in terrible condition. There are only subtle differences between the nations.

The people in every nation are living among mentally ill and crude people who lie, cheat, abuse, murder, steal, rape, and have temper tantrums. Every nation has corrupt, selfish, and abusive people dominating their government and businesses. Every nation is doing a terrible job of educating their children and preparing them for modern jobs and modern society. Every nation has cities that are ugly and chaotic. Every nation is ignoring their problems of overpopulation, unwanted children, unwanted pets, garbage, retards, teenage gangs, and crime networks. Every nation encourages bad attitudes, such as arrogance, anger towards other nations, the following of prehistoric traditions, and attacking people as unpatriotic for looking critically at their culture.

If every nation could provide themselves with appropriate leadership, then every nation would stop whining about other nations and start focusing on developing their own nation. The leaders of every nation would critically analyze their society, and lead us in experiments to improve our lives. Every nation would begin to improve, and we would also inspire one another and learn from one another.

I think we have to replace most of the people who are currently in leadership positions in government, business, schools, and other organizations. I don't think we can transform those people into appropriate leaders simply by demanding that they stop being so selfish and start showing more of an interest in society. I think they rose to leadership positions because there is something wrong with their mind. They do not have the personality or attitude of a drill sergeant. They are more equivalent to obese people, except that instead of having trouble controlling their cravings for food, they cannot control something else, perhaps their cravings for status or wealth.

The people who dominate the world today are ineffective leaders because they focus on pleasing their emotional cravings, and we cannot change their brain circuitry. We need to find people who are naturally more interested in working with society and naturally less interested in acquiring material items, land, and status.

Our leaders should provide guidance during problems
Consider the similarity between the way animals and humans react to floods. When a rainstorm floods a nest of ants, the ants react by grabbing their eggs and larvae and running away from the water. After the water has drained away, the ants return to the nest, or build a new nest if the old one was destroyed, and then they resume their life. When the next rainstorm occurs, the ants repeat the process. They cycle repeats over and over, century after century.

When wolves are caught in a flood, the mothers pick up their babies, and all of the wolves try to escape the water. When the flood is over, they resume their life as if nothing had happened.

When a human city is flooded, the people grab their babies and some of their material items, and run to dry ground. When the water subsides, they return to their homes, or build new homes, and then the people resume their life as if nothing had happened.

Both animals and humans react to floods in the same manner.
The natural tendency of a human is to behave like an animal. One of the reasons that we need leaders is to dampen our animal cravings and provide us with guidance so that we behave in a more intelligent manner.
When a group of people experience a flood, our leaders should get together and put some effort into determining why the flood occurred, and then they would experiment with methods of reducing floods in the future. They would do something to improve our lives, not ignore the problem like a stupid animal.

Most cities have been designed to deal with the weather conditions that are typical for their area, but it doesn't seem as if any city has been designed to deal with extreme weather. The reason is because we don't have any desire to analyze history or weather patterns, and then use that historical data to predict what our future will be. We receive emotional pressure from eating food, but not from analyzing historical data or designing drainage systems.

As a result of our similarity to animals, every human city suffers during extreme rainstorms, just as the animals suffer from it. Most cities provide protected areas for people to wait for trains, and a few cities provide a few covered walkways, but most areas of every city leave people exposed to the weather. When a city experiences an unusually heavy rainstorm, parts of the city will flood, or have mudslides, or cause serious problems with pedestrian or automobile traffic.

An alien from another planet would notice that ants, wolves, tigers, and humans are regularly suffering from heavy rain storms, heavy snowstorms, and wind. An alien would realize that animals lack the intelligence to deal with weather, but humans do have the ability. So, why don't humans use their intelligence to design cities that are better able to deal with extreme weather conditions? What is wrong with us?

The problem is that humans are animals, and we want to behave like an animal. We need leaders who are like drill sergeants and will push us into dealing with the problems of modern society. However, we are not going to get those type of leaders by letting men fight for leadership positions, or by letting the majority of people vote. We are going to have to start putting some effort into developing a better method of selecting leaders.

Human cities resemble ant colonies

Now consider the similarity between the way humans and animals provide themselves with a place to sleep at night. The animals that are nomadic will wander around during the day, and in the evening they find a location to sleep, but they do not coordinate their activities, or consider the history of the location, such as whether it is a floodplain. Each animal simply finds a location that is near the other animals, and then lays down to sleep.

The animals that burrow into the ground, such as ants and prairie dogs, also wander around until they find a location they like, and then they start digging into the ground. Their burrows may seem to show planning, but each creature merely starts digging.

Our prehistoric ancestors would find a place to sleep just like the apes and wolves. They would wander around during the day, and during the evening they would find a location that appealed to them, and then each of them would pick a location that was near the other people. They would not plan or coordinate their activities.

When our ancestors began developing agriculture and settling down in cities, they had the intelligence necessary to create a city for themselves that was attractive, efficient, and quiet, but their natural desire was to behave like an ape. Each adult man would build a home for his family in whatever location he pleased with no regard to what other men were doing. Those first cities resembled ant and prairie dog colonies, except that instead of burrowing into the ground and connecting the homes with tubes, the people built homes on top of the land and connected the homes with foot paths.

This chaotic method of creating a city was acceptable 6000 years ago because the cities were small, and they consisted almost entirely of small houses. However, as technology improved, especially during the past few centuries, the cities became more than just homes. People were soon building factories, retail stores, offices, plazas, telephone wires, garbage dumps, airports, railroads, and orphanages. The lack of planning resulted in a noisy, filthy, overcrowded city in which transportation and shipping became increasingly difficult.

Why didn't any of our ancestors put effort into figuring out how to design more pleasant cities? Why aren't any of us involved in this activity?

Why are people today capable of putting a lot of labor and resources into Hollywood movies, gambling casinos, churches, alcoholic beverages, and pets, but not capable of putting effort into developing more pleasant cities with better transportation systems?

It should be obvious that the reason we are putting so much of our labor and resources into gambling casinos, religion, alcoholic beverages, strip clubs, Hollywood, and certain other activities is because we do whatever we find emotionally appealing, and we avoid the activities that do not titillate us.

Humans have an emotional craving to get together with other people to socialize, create babies, and eat food, but we do not have any craving to get together with other people to discuss city planning, transportation systems, garbage collection, or recycling. As a result, we consider it to be "fun" to get together with other people to eat, but we consider it boring to get together to deal with recycling.

The only way we are going to improve our cities is if we can find some people who are capable of controlling their emotional cravings well enough so that they can push themselves into dealing with society's problems. Those particular people need to be put into leadership positions.

Finding those people requires analyzing a person's mental characteristics, achievements, and failures, and then passing judgment on whether they show leadership abilities. We then have to select some of those people for leadership positions. Then we must regularly review their performance, and we must continuously replace the worst performing leaders so that other people have a chance to try their talents.

Both animals and humans ignore crime

Now consider how animals react to crime. This is a documentary about a tribe of monkeys in the Japanese mountains. One day a monkey from some other area chased after one of the females of the tribe, apparently to rape her. She ran away while screaming, and some of the other males of her tribe rushed over to protect her. They chased after the other male, but after he crossed a stream of water, they decided not to bother chasing him any further. Their attitude was that the problem was over, and they resumed their life as if nothing had happened. They were successful in preventing that particular attempted rape, but they didn't do anything to prevent future rapes.

An alien who is observing the earth would notice that animals are regularly experiencing the same problems over and over because they lack the ability to analyze their problems and experiment with solutions. The aliens would notice that humans have the intellectual ability to experiment with solutions, but they refuse to do so, and the end result is that humans also experience the same problems over and over, century after century.

To make the situation more ridiculous, sometimes we experience the same crimes from the same people. For example, in 1969, William Vahey was 20 years old, and he was arrested for sexual contact with eight boys between the ages of 7 and 9. He admitted to touching boys without their consent since he was 14 years old. He was sent to jail for 90 days. Everybody assumed that the problem was solved, and they resumed their life as if nothing had happened.

In 2014, a maid was cleaning William Vahey's home and discovered a USB memory drive with photos of him molesting young boys. It turns out that he continued to molest boys after being released from jail. The jail did not cure him of his problem. Furthermore, he was risking the health and lives of the boys because he was giving them cookies that he laced with sleeping pills. A few boys became ill from his cookies, perhaps because they had consumed an excessive quantity of the pills.

If Vahey had not committed suicide, he would probably have been put in jail for a few months, and then released, and then he would have molested other boys.

Some news reports make it appear as if William Vahey did such a good job of hiding his pedophilia that nobody could see it, but his problem was obvious the first time he was arrested, and in the years that followed, many people noticed that there was something abnormal in his relationship with young boys. People preferred to ignore his strange behavior, just as they did with Elliott Rodger.

Animals have only two reactions to problems. They either 1) run away and hide from the problem, or 2) become violent and fight. Their limited intelligence prevents them from the more advanced activities, such as thinking, experimenting, discussing, and compromising.

Humans have the intelligence to react in a sensible way to problems, but we prefer to follow our emotions and behave like animals. The end result is that most people either hide from problems, or react with anger.

Thousands of years ago there were no police, laws, or governments, and so when people were annoyed by criminals, or when a parent was annoyed with his retarded child, they could react with anger and either kill the undesirable person or chase him out of their tribe. Today, however, we get in trouble for violent behavior, and so most people are reacting to problems by ignoring them.

Now that William Vahey has been exposed as a pedophile, we have the opportunity to analyze what he did, how he did it, and how he got away with it, but many people want to continue ignoring the issue. For example, many of the parents who have a son who had contact with William Vahey said that they do not want to know if their son had been abused. They are behaving exactly like a frightened rabbit who is hiding in the bushes. This is crude, animal behavior, not intelligent, human behavior.

Those parents might respond that neither they nor their children will gain anything by knowing if they were molested, but secrecy hurts all of us. The human race will benefit by studying crimes and releasing the details to the public. This information will help people in the future to understand and prevent similar crimes.

For example, if one of the victims were to become a father later in life, and if his son were to complain about feeling miserable, he might recognize the symptoms as being similar to what he had experienced, and he would suspect that his son was drugged by a pedophile. By comparison, if he had no idea that he was a victim, he might tell his son, "Oh, don't worry. I had that mysterious disease, also, when I was your age. You will feel fine in a day or two. It happens sometimes when you go on camping trips, or visit churches. A couple times I got it when I was visiting my grandparents. It's no big deal."

Furthermore, by releasing all of the details about Vahey and his victims, other children might realize that they had similar symptoms after eating candy that a man had given them, and that in turn could cause them or their parents to look into the possibility that they were also drugged by a pedophile. This could help other people identify other pedophiles.

A society of ignorant, frightened savages who ignore problems and keep secrets will not develop a good understanding of human behavior, and they will not be able to properly deal with their problems. Modern society needs members who are capable of pushing themselves into facing reality, being honest, discussing problems, and experimenting with possible solutions to their problems. A society is going to suffer if the people are so similar to monkeys that all they want to do is feed themselves, play with babies, and gather material items.

If information about everybody's life was available on the Internet, then we would be able to look at the lives of the men who have been involved with pedophilia, and I'm sure we would notice some patterns. For example, I suspect that many of those men show an abnormal attraction to children and babies. It doesn't take much intelligence to notice that women have an intense craving to spend lots of time with babies and children, but men do not. Men can tolerate children only for short periods of time, and men have even less of an interest in babies. Furthermore, when men are with children, the relationship is like a father and a child, not like two friends.

Therefore, men who want to spend lots of time with children, and especially men who form close friendships with children, are abnormal. Some of those men might simply be more feminine than normal, but because men have strong sexual cravings, we should be concerned that those type of men are potential pedophiles.

“My bad behavior is due to my bad childhood!”

When Vahey was confronted by a woman about the photos on his USB drive, he told her, "I was molested as a boy, that is why I do this. I have been doing this my whole life."

The people who resist the possibility that human behavior is determined by the genetic design of our brain will support Vahey's theory, but that theory is absurd. If we had a database of everybody's life, we would be able to look at all of the boys who have been molested, and we would certainly notice that most of them ended up becoming normal, heterosexual men. We would also discover that certain families have a greater proportion of child molesters, but not because they are molesting one another and transforming each other into molesters. It would be because there is something different in their genetics.

The database would also show us that children are not molested at random. Child molesters tend to select children who are the least likely to cause trouble, such as retarded children, unwanted orphans, and their own children or relatives.

When a father molests his children, and when that child grows up to molest other children, it is easy to assume that the act of being molested caused him to become a molester, but the most likely explanation is that the family simply has certain mental characteristics that are resulting in that type of behavior. If one of Josef Fritzl's descendants or relatives becomes a child molester, it would not be because of their childhood. It would be because of their genetics.

A database of everybody's life would prevent people from blaming their bad behavior on their childhood. For example, when an adult explains his abusive behavior as being due to his mother dying when he was very young, or because his parents got a divorce, we could point out to him that the database shows that millions of other people around the world, and in previous generations, had virtually the same childhood, but they didn't turn out to be disgusting.

How many pedophiles are molesting children right now?

If we had total video surveillance of the entire planet, we might find that pedophilia is so common that several men are molesting children as you read this sentence. And we might find that after those men have finished, a few other men begin to molest some other children.
Total video surveillance would also show us that there are lots of other destructive activities occurring on a regular basis, such as burglaries, men and women who are deceiving each other into marriage, government officials who are taking bribes, and teenage gangs that are fighting with each other.

When you show people evidence that Jews blew up the World Trade Center towers, most people want to push the information away. If we could take people into a room that had monitors that showed the crimes that are occurring around the world, most people would want to walk out of the room.

Both animals and humans prefer to hide from problems. This is the reason people abandon pets in the city rather than deal with the issue of unwanted pets, and it is also why they abandon unwanted children in orphanages.

Crime is rampant all over the world, and many people insist that there's nothing they can do to stop it. However, the reason crime is rampant is because most people refuse to experiment with techniques to reduce it. We have the intellectual ability to improve our lives, but nothing is going to improve unless we can push ourselves into experimenting with possible improvements.

William Vahey shows us that one method to reduce crime is to put everybody's life in a public database. Vahey was an American, but he molested boys in several different nations. This brings up an issue that I mentioned in a previous document; namely, that people today are no longer individual savages who can do whatever they please without affecting other people. In this modern world, one person can influence people all over the planet, and we can also influence billions of people who have not yet been born.

This concept applies to organizations, also. For example, the businesses that produce chemicals that can damage living creatures are affecting more than just the people in their local vicinity. They can affect the health and lives of people, animals, and plants all over the world, and of the future.

The population of honeybees has been dwindling in many nations. One recent research project claims that insecticides are the main reason. In America, so many honeybees have died that some businesses are profiting from the disaster by renting honeybees to farmers who need to pollinate their fields.

This article from June 2008 is about farmers complaining to the House Agricultural Committee that the cost of renting honeybees had risen so much recently that they were being forced to raise prices for their crops. It has been six years since that article was written, but what have we done about the problem? Most people, including those in leadership positions, are ignoring the problem, and some businesses are using the disaster as a profit opportunity.

If further research proves that the bees are indeed dying as a result of insecticides, it would be more evidence that a small number of people can have a significant effect on the entire planet and the future generations. It would be more evidence that we cannot let businesses, nations, or individuals do whatever they please. Everybody on this planet must become a responsible team member. We must be concerned about what every person, business, and nation is doing.

Our emotions want to do whatever we please with no regard to the consequences, but in this modern world, each of us has a responsibility to consider how our actions will affect other people and the future. No business, individual, or nation has the right to do whatever they please. Their activities can adversely affect all living creatures. Everybody today needs to consider how their actions are going to affect the world and the future.

Our leaders should analyze all of our chemicals and products to determine if any of them are harming our health or the planet. For example, years ago I noticed that the soft plastic and silicone spatulas seem to be shedding material. Some hard plastics seem to be stable, but the soft plastics and rubbers do not. I stopped using spatulas in case consuming small bits of plastic or rubber on a continuous basis is dangerous, but is it? Or are those materials safe for us to eat?

The people who are too much like an animal to care about their effect on society are unfit for this modern world. Actually, they are potentially dangerous, especially in leadership positions, because they are the most likely to behave in manners that are detrimental.

Because everybody can affect everybody else, nobody should be allowed to be secretive about himself or his activities. Everybody should be able to know who we are living with, and what each person is doing with his life. Criminals want to be able to get together in secrecy and conduct secret activities, but no normal person needs that level of secrecy.

The police departments should be able to know who is entering their city, and nations should be able to know who is entering their nation. Nobody today should have the freedom of a prehistoric savage to travel wherever he pleases, and settle down wherever he wants.

If a database of everybody's life had been in existence for decades, then when William Vahey entered another nation, that nation would have been able to look in that database and discover that Vahey had already admitted to molesting young boys. They could then decide if they want him in their nation, and if so, whether they will allow him to have close contact with children.

All throughout history, people have been behaving like animals. If we can push ourselves into controlling our emotions and experimenting with changes to society, we will eventually bring such dramatic improvements that it will seem as if the human race has entered a new universe. We could be living in intelligently designed cities that are attractive everywhere, even in the factories and warehouses, and we could simplify our lives, such as by eliminating money, helping people to find jobs, and developing more sensible social and courtship activities.

We will start the process as soon as enough people stop titillating themselves with food and babies and start pushing themselves into getting together with other people and experimenting with improvements.