Hufschmid's main page
Previous comments

 
My comments on
some recent events

9 Nov 2015



 
C
O
N
T
E
N
T
Jennifer Lawrence complains about inequality
Why are there so many problems in the human world?
Animals are inherently deceptive
Honesty is ideal, but can we handle it?
Have you noticed the beauty of the world?


Jennifer Lawrence complains about inequality

According to Forbes magazine, Jennifer Lawrence was the highest-paid female actress in the world in 2015 with an income of $50 million.

Lawrence was undoubtedly proud to become so wealthy and famous. It was an impressive achievement, especially for somebody who was so young, had done so little work, and had such a limited education.

However, in November 2014 some documents from the Sony Corporation were posted on the Internet, and among that information was the amount of money some of the people in Hollywood were making.



Lawrence discovered that some male actors in Hollywood were paid more than she was for what she considered to be the same type of work. She became upset about the discrepancy between male and female actors, but she blamed herself for not being more forceful during salary negotiations.

In October 2015, she wrote this short article to complain that women are treated unfairly by men. Her two primary complaints are:

1) Women are paid less than men for the same work.

2) Women are criticized for being aggressive if they are as forceful during salary negotiations as men, or if they state their opinions in the same manner as men.


The people who promoted Lawrence's complaints created the impression that Lawrence believes that men and women should be paid equally for equal amounts of work, but I don't see any sign that she cares about women or equality. Lawrence seems interested only in boosting her own income. Likewise, all of the women in the video embedded in this article about Lawrence's complaints are also extremely wealthy actresses who show a concern only for their own income. None of these wealthy women show any concern for the lives of other women.

I agree with Jennifer Lawrence that women are paid less than men, but it is not because of sexism. As I described in this document with Emma Watson as an example, it is because men have a strong craving to gather food and material items, and bring it home to their wives and children. We are monkeys, and our emotions want us to pamper women with gifts, not work with or compete with them.

Although I agree with Lawrence that men are not paying women equally, it is absurd for her to complain that she is being abused by sexist men. She is one of the wealthiest people to have ever lived, and men in Hollywood gave her that money, not women. Furthermore, she did not do much of anything to earn that enormous amount of money.

Lawrence creates the impression that she believes that women and men should be paid equally, but she shows no interest in equality for other women. She and the other wealthy women who complain about inequality simply want to become even more wealthy than they already are. These are not women to admire or look to for guidance. They are women that I would describe as "animal-like", or "selfish", or "neurotic". I think all of them are unacceptable as role models, and none of them should be allowed to influence society. They should be told to keep their idiotic opinions to themselves.

Is Hollywood treating women equally?


It is hypocritical for the absurdly wealthy Hollywood actresses to claim that they believe in equality and fairness for women. Jennifer Lawrence, Emma Watson, and the other wealthy actresses who whine about inequality did not become wealthy on their own. Each of those wealthy actresses was just one member of a very large team that was producing and distributing movies. If those wealthy actresses truly believed in paying women equally for equal amounts of work, then why don't they reduce their salary and share the profits with the other women on their team?

The wealthy Hollywood people are perhaps the most vocal advocates of "equality", but they have some of the most unequal salaries of any organization. The wealthy Hollywood actresses are hypocrites to claim that they support equal pay for equal work when some women in Hollywood are given $50 million for a few months of work, while most women in Hollywood have to work full-time for less than $50,000 a year.

There have also been accusations, such as those by Corey Feldman, that pedophilia is rampant in Hollywood. Is Hollywood treating children equally or fairly?

Although some wealthy people in Hollywood might have the audacity to claim that they have "earned" their money, it is ridiculous to say that anybody who is making millions of dollars a year is truly earning it. Everybody who makes that much money is just one member of a very large team. The people who make enormous amounts of money are doing so simply because the free enterprise system does not provide for any leadership, so there is nobody to distribute wealth in a sensible manner. Instead, everybody competes for money, and whoever is the best at grabbing at money will become the wealthiest.

None of the wealthy people in Hollywood can seriously claim that they are being cheated out of their money. It would make more sense to say that all of them are exploiting the free enterprise system by taking an enormous amount of money for themselves.

When Lawrence discovered that some male actors were paid more than her, she blamed herself. She wrote:
"I got mad at myself. I failed as a negotiator because I gave up early. I didn’t want to keep fighting over millions of dollars that, frankly, due to two franchises, I don’t need."

Instead of becoming upset with herself and whining about sexism and inequality, she could have written something like this:
"I had thought that I and some other women were greedy and demanding, but I was shocked to discover that men are worse than the greediest of women!"

Imagine people craving obesity

Because we have a strong craving for material wealth, most people have a difficult time looking critically at the weathy Hollywood celebrities. We have a tendency to admire them, and to fantasize about having their level of wealth and fame. Therefore, it might help you to understand this issue if you substitute something for the money, such as food.

So, imagine if Jennifer Lawrence and the other people in Hollywood had intense cravings for food rather than intense cravings for money. Imagine that instead of craving giant mansions, giant yachts, and giant diamond rings, they craved obesity. In such a case, instead of giving the actors and actresses lots of money, they would be given enormous amounts of food.

Imagine that Jennifer Lawrence is one of the most obese women in the world as a result of becoming a famous Hollywood actress. And imagine that she is happy that men are constantly feeding her. Imagine that Forbes magazine publishes a document that claims that she is the fattest female actress in the world. Imagine that she is proud to be the fattest actress.

Now imagine that one day somebody releases documents from Sony that disclose the weight of people in Hollywood. Imagine that Lawrence discovers that there are some men in Hollywood who are being given more food than she is, and they have become more obese than her. Imagine Lawrence becoming angry and complaining that Hollywood is not treating women fairly; that men are becoming more obese than women even though the women are doing the same jobs. Imagine her complaining that women should be just as obese as the men.



If the people in Hollywood were competing with one another to become the most obese person in the world, you would probably regard all of them as disgusting freaks; or as retards. You would not regard Jennifer Lawrence as a crusader for women's rights when she complained that some men were more obese than she, and you would not regard her as an intelligent person who had an interesting analysis of life. You would have no interest in listening to her or the other obese actresses whining about how sexist men are cheating women out of their food.

What is the difference between an obese woman who is whining that men are sexist for giving more food to men than they give to her, and an incredibly wealthy woman who is whining that men are sexist for giving more money to men than they give to her?

I do not see any significant difference between those two types of women. A woman who makes that type of complaint is not showing any concern for society, or for the lives of other women. She is showing a concern only for grabbing an absurd amount of stuff for herself.

If Jennifer Lawrence, or any of the people who are promoting her complaints, were truly interested in helping women, then instead of whining that the extremely wealthy actresses should be paid an even more extreme amount of money, they would be complaining that all of the people in Hollywood, and many other people in the free enterprise system, are taking absurd amounts of money, and that we should experiment with a society that divides the economic pie in a more sensible manner.

We do not improve life by giving more money to wealthy people

In a previous document, I pointed out that women are not going to improve their lives by putting a picture of a woman on a $20 bill. Likewise, women are not going to improve their lives simply by demanding that Hollywood give the extremely wealthy actresses so much more money that they become as absurdly wealthy as the wealthiest male actors.

A woman is a fool to think that the wealthy actresses are interested in her life or happiness. The people who are attracted to Hollywood show an interest only in becoming the equivalent of financially obese pigs, and they want us to pamper them. They do not want to be our equals.

This concept applies to other organizations, also, not just Hollywood. For example, businesses and government agencies often justify giving an executive an incredibly large salary on the grounds that they are merely paying their executives the same amount that they would receive from other businesses or agencies. In other words, they claim that they are merely being "fair" to the executives; that they are paying them "equally".

In reality, none of those extremely wealthy executives are interested in fairness or equality. They are simply trying to justify their absurdly high incomes.

For another example, the conservatives frequently promote the theory that the economy will improve simply by giving tax breaks to wealthy people or corporations. In reality, the wealthy people are merely tricking the nation into giving them handouts so that they can become even wealthier, and without any additional work.

The wealthy people who promote such theories as giving tax breaks to wealthy people, or who justify their extremely high salaries as merely treating people with fairness and equality, are behaving like selfish monkeys who are trying to justify grabbing a larger slice of the economic pie. They are people who are willing to deceive and manipulate in order to get what they want.

We are not going to improve our economy or our lives simply by giving more money to wealthy people. The only way we are going to improve our lives is to start experimenting with a different economic system, a different government system, different social affairs, a different school system, and different cities with different transportation systems.

In order to improve life, we have to do some work. We need the ability to analyze our problems, discuss them, work together as a team, and experiment with our society. Nothing is going to improve if all we do is allow the wealthy people to grab more money for themselves, or if each of us selfishly focuses on ourselves.

How do we treat people equally?

The concept of paying people equally for equal amounts of work sounds wonderful, but how do we measure "work"? If there was such a thing as a "work-o-meter", then each person could wear one on his wrist, and that would allow us to determine how much work each person is doing.

Unfortunately, we cannot measure "work". We would put a large burden on society if we tried to actually measure the amount of work each person was doing. We would have to put video cameras and other sensors on everybody so that we could figure out what each person was doing at their job. That would give us a tremendous amount of data to analyze. We would have to spend a lot of time trying to determine how much time each person was actually working, what they had accomplished, how many mistakes they made, and what level of quality they had achieved.

There may be a point in the future at which computers can observe people and provide statistics on what each person is doing at his job, but as of today, it is impractical.

As I have suggested in other documents, I think we should simplify our economic situation by providing everybody with virtually the same level of housing and material wealth so that there are no significant differences between us. If we want to reward certain people, we would let them have access to nicer social clubs and recreational areas rather than giving things to the person, such as mansions, yachts, or land. With that type of reward, the person's spouse and children cannot inherit anything. Also, it is easy to take that reward away if we decide that the person no longer deserves it.

This philosophy is similar to what we see with businesses and the military. A business, for example, might reward an executive with a slightly nicer office, or access to a slightly nicer cafeteria. However, the executive doesn't get possession of the office or cafeteria. If the executive dies, or is fired, his children do not get to inherit that office or cafeteria.

Jennifer Lawrence and the people who promote her complaints are trying to create the impression that they support the concept of equality and fairness, but we are not treating people equally when we allow some people to make millions of dollars a year, especially when it is only part-time work.

If any of those wealthy Hollywood celebrities were truly interested in treating men and women in a fair and equal manner, and if any of them truly believed in paying men and women equally for equal amounts of work, then they would suggest that the wealthy people have their salaries reduced to the level of ordinary people.

Why should we allow some people to grab thousands of times as much money than the rest of us? What is fair or equal about that? How is that paying people equally for equal amounts of work? How can Lawrence complain that men are not treating women fairly when she has no interest in treating her female team members fairly, either?

The wealthy people expect us to grow food for them, provide them with electricity, work on assembly lines for them, and build mansions for them; And they expect us to work for a very low salary. What is fair about that? How is that "equality"?

How can a person who makes $50 million claim to promote the concept of paying people equally for equal amounts of work? Is an actress really doing 1000 times as much work as an assembly line worker, an electrician, or a farmer?

To make the situation more absurd, the assembly-line workers, farmers, and other people are expected to work five days a week, 48 to 50 weeks a year, and for decades, whereas actors and actresses work only once in a while. How are we paying people equally when the people in Hollywood make phenomenal amounts of money for so little work?

If we were to pay people equally for equal amounts of work, then the people in Hollywood who work only a few hours a year would be paid much less than the people who are working full-time.

Why should a few people in the entertainment business be allowed to collect royalties for their work? Carpenters are not allowed to charge us royalties for living in a house that they built, and a clothing company cannot charge us royalties when we wear a shirt that they produced. So why do we allow a few people Hollywood to collect royalties instead of demanding that they work like everybody else and charge a sensible fee for their products and services?

Why don't feminists complain about abusive women?

Many feminists complain that men are not treating women fairly or paying women equally for equal amounts of work, but many women are also unfair to women and paying them unfairly. There are lots of women who are just as greedy, selfish, and inconsiderate as men. Why don't any of the feminists complain about the women who do not treat other women fairly? Why do the feminists only complain about men?

The feminists also frequently complain that men put pressure on women to remain at home with children rather than compete with men in business or science, but there are lots of women who also put pressure on their friends and daughters to remain at home with children. Why don't the feminists complain about those women? Why do they only complain about men?

The reason feminists complain only about men is because they are not truly interested in analyzing our problems, doing any research, or discussing any issues. They are not looking for solutions to our problems. They are simply unhappy for some reason, and they are having a temper tantrum. They are whining; not offering us intelligent analyses of our problems. The men should stand up to this nonsense rather than encourage it.

Was Lawrence influenced into complaining about her “abuse”?

Ever since I got involved with 9/11, a lot of wonderful, friendly people have been contacting me and giving me advice and information. However, most of those people were actually Jews or people working for Jews, and they were trying to fool me into promoting idiotic propaganda, or they were encouraging me to do something that would ruin my reputation or set me up for blackmail. They were not really my friends.

Most people are easily manipulated by friendly people who praise them or provide them with assistance of some type, such as financial assistance or employment assistance. The reason is because most people are fairly honest, and they assume that other people are honest, also. When they meet somebody who is friendly and helpful, they assume that the person is genuinely interested in becoming their friend.

Unfortunately, this world is full of liars, and the most successful crime technique is to pretend to be somebody's friend. This allows a criminal to get to know the victim and figure out how to manipulate him. Even if the criminal has to spend thousands of his own dollars in the process, it can be worth it to him because he may be able to get back many times his investment, or he may be able to blackmail the person and get favors that he could never have purchased or stolen.

In my case, friendly people would provide me with information that was partly incorrect in the hope that I would promote it on my website, and that would allow the Jews to ridicule me as an idiot who is promoting nonsense, and therefore, nobody should pay any attention to what I say. In the beginning, during 2002, they would give me some of the most idiotic information of all, such as the Philadelphia Experiment. During the following months they realized that I was not that easy to fool, so they gave me propaganda that was not so obviously stupid.

“Eric, prescription drugs are dangerous and addictive. Doctors are just pill pushers for greedy pharmaceutical corporations.”

Amazingly, I did fall for some of their tricks, such as when one of them suggested that I remove a remark from my video in which I say, "What a coincidence! Who is this person?", in regards to that mysterious person who happened to point his camera out of his apartment window just at the right moment to see Building 7 collapse. He had fooled me into thinking that it was a silly remark. After I removed it, it occurred to me that he did not want me to bring attention to that mysterious person.

My original video also had an American flag that morphed into a flag with 50 Jewish stars instead of 50 5-pointed stars, and a wonderful "truth seeker" convinced me that I should remove that "offensive" image.

After posting a document in which I explained how I am benefiting tremendously from thyroid hormones, wonderful, friendly people would tell me that I should avoid prescription drugs because of their dangers. In reality, the Jews don't want me to improve my health.

Everybody who becomes influential seems to be pursued by lots of Jews, and each Jew uses a slightly different technique in the hope that at least one Jew will be successful in becoming a friend of the victim. I would bet that Jennifer Lawrence is regularly pursued by Jews, and that they are constantly trying to influence her, find her weaknesses, and use her to promote their propaganda.

Jews may have been behind the release of the information from the Sony Corporation, but even if they did not release that information, I suspect that they were pointing out to Lawrence and other women that the women were underpaid compared to some other actors. I think the Jews were looking for a woman who was foolish enough to make a fuss over the issue, and Jennifer Lawrence became their fool. I have the feeling that she was not going to complain about her "abuse", but that the Jews successfully influenced her into doing so.

The point I'm trying to make is that everybody who becomes influential needs to be very suspicious about their "friends" and the advice that they are given. To make the situation more complex, some people truly are your friends and truly are trying to help you, but they give you bad advice because they picked up propaganda or idiotic ideas, or because they simply don't think very well.

You must push yourself into thinking about what to do rather than mindlessly following other people. Don't let your emotions cause you to follow people like a stupid sheep.

The submissive group feels oppressed

The tendency of feminists to whine only about the abuse by men, but not about the abuse by women, is an important issue to understand. In every organization, regardless of whether it is a society, business, or sports team, there will be a hierarchy, and a small number of people will be in the top, and the majority of the people will be in submissive positions.

Animals create a hierarchy through physical fights. Animals have no interest in "earning" their position in the hierarchy. Instead, they fight for it. The animals that are in a submissive position are forced to be submissive; they do not want to be submissive. Therefore, if animals could speak to us, they would complain that their leaders are aggressive bullies who oppress them with intimidation, threats, and violence.

Humans are not interested in earning their position in life, either. Our emotions want us to behave just like an animal and use intimidation, sabotage, blackmail, bribery, nepotism, inheritances, and our friends and spouses.

Because many people are achieving high social status as a result of crude, animal behavior, the people who end up in the submissive positions can easily develop the attitude that the people in the top positions are bullies or criminals who are oppressing and abusing us.

If some of the people in the submissive positions are different from the people at the top, such as a different race, sex, or religion, they are likely to go even further and assume that they are being discriminated against by the people in the top positions. This can cause those groups to become rebellious and angry.

We can see examples in America of people in the submissive groups working themselves into a state of anger over imaginary discrimination. For two examples,
• Women can refer to other women as "girls", but when men use that same word, many women assume that the men are using those words to abuse or degrade women.
• Black Americans can refer to one another as "niggers", but if a white American uses the word, millions of black people assume that they are being abused and insulted.

When we appease whiny people, we are encouraging them to whine; we are not improving society, or improving life for anybody. A more appropriate reaction would be to tell the whiny people to analyze the problems that they are upset about, and provide us with an intelligent analysis of it.

The women who whine about being referred to as "girls" are not analyzing our problems. They are simply upset with something and having a temper tantrum. They are disruptive to society, and we should not encourage them by giving them pity.

Men are not abusing women when we refer to them as "girls". Rather, men are behaving like monkeys when we do this. Men have a natural tendency to think of adult women as young girls for the same reason that mothers tend to think of their children as "children" even when those children are 50 years old.

Male and female animals evolved for certain roles in life. We are not unisex creatures. Male humans are designed to pamper and care for the females, and the females are designed to pamper and care for the children. Male humans are designed to regard female humans as being analogous to large children who need their constant care and protection. Likewise, mothers have the attitude that their children need constant care and protection.

Certain animals go through distinct changes when they become adults. For example, young birds develop the ability to fly, and that transition can trigger the adult birds into treating the young bird as an adult rather than a helpless baby. However, human children do not go through any dramatic change as they become adults. Actually, there is no point at which we can say a human child has become an adult. Some people will refer to children as "adults" when they are 16 years old, and others will consider them to be children until they are 21.

Mothers consider their children to be "children" no matter how old they are. This sometimes causes arguments between mothers and their adult children. The women who are capable of understanding this issue ought to be able to realize that the conflict between mothers and adult children is virtually the same as between men and women. Men tend to think of women as children even if the women are 50 years old. We do not think of women as "girls" because we are sexist or want to hurt the women. Rather, it is simply because of the way our brains have been designed.

The problems we are suffering from today are not due to men or women. It is due to the fact that we are monkeys, and we are living in an environment that we were not designed for. Both men and women need to get a better understanding of themselves and the opposite sex, and both men and women need to do a better job of controlling our emotions and thinking more often.

Squeaky humans should not get grease

As I mentioned in other documents, human societies are following the philosophy that "the squeaky wheel should get the grease". This is the philosophy that animals follow. The animals within a group are constantly fighting with one another over everything they want, and the animals that are the most aggressive, neurotic, and selfish get more food, water, mates, and status than the other animals.

In human societies, the people who are the most aggressive, whiny, and demanding also tend to get what they want. This philosophy makes sense for animals and primitive humans, but it is detrimental in modern society because it is often rewarding the worst-behaved and most neurotic people.

An example of how idiotic this philosophy is are the people who become so obese that they can no longer get out of their chair and feed themselves. When those obese people become hungry, they whine for food. The appropriate reaction from other people would be to respond, "No, we are not going to bring you any food. We will bring you some water and vital nutrients, but you will sit there until you have lost enough weight to feed yourself."

However, instead of standing up to their demands for food, we follow the philosophy that when children or adults are crying, it is our responsibility to give them what they want and try to make them feel better. Every society is promoting the attitude that we should never hurt somebody, and that if a person is whining or crying, then he is being hurt, and we should feel guilty. This encourages the children to whine, and it makes the obese people even fatter.

News articles from Britain complain that obesity is placing a significant burden on the nation, but the British government continues to spend tax money to feed and clean the obese people, thereby increasing the burden on society.

In the case of Paul Mason (in the photo), the cost to taxpayers of feeding, caring for, and eventually giving gastric bypass surgery to, has been over £1 million. And he is just one of many obese people that the British taxpayers are feeding.

All societies are following the philosophy that happiness comes from titillating our pleasant emotions and avoiding our unpleasant emotions. Therefore, every society believes that we are being wonderful people when we give whiny children or adults whatever they are crying for.

In this modern world, we have to make a distinction between when we are truly "hurting" a person, and when we are merely refusing to obey their idiotic demands. For example, we are hurting a person if we stick a knife into their body, but we are not hurting an obese person when we refuse to bring him food, and we are not hurting a child when we refuse to give him a toy he is asking for, and we are not hurting a person who has a serious genetic problem when we refuse to let him reproduce.

Conversely, we are not helping a person simply by pampering them with whatever they want. People like to imagine that they are kind, loving, and generous when they pamper children with toys and candy, or when they pamper obese people with food, or when they help a retard get pregnant, but those people are not being kind or generous. They are merely titillating themselves.

It made sense for our prehistoric ancestors to try to satisfy every demand of their children and spouse, but in this modern world, we have to push ourselves into thinking about when we are truly helping a person, and when we are wasting our time, hurting the person, or hurting society.

The majority of people today are behaving just like stupid animals. They follow the animal-like desires to pursue emotional pleasure and avoid whatever they dislike. By following this philosophy, they appease whiny people, thereby making the problem worse, and they do nothing to help themselves understand or deal with obesity, crime, ugly cities, or the unfairness of the free enterprise system.

Another problem with appeasing whiny people is that many of them appear to be Jews who are trying to stir up trouble. For example, in November 2015 Joshua Feuerstein began whining that Starbucks had taken Jesus Christ out of Christmas. The Jews in the media give him worldwide publicity and created the impression that he is bringing up an issue of importance that we should all be concerned with. However, we ought to investigate the issue rather than react emotionally. For all we know, Feuerstein is a Jew, or working with the Jews, and he may also be working with some Jews in Starbucks and the media, and for the purpose of instigating fights.

We don't solve problems by whining, or by appeasing whiny people. We solve problems by analyzing the problems, discussing the problems, and experimenting with solutions. People who whine or have temper tantrums should be regarded as low quality people. We should not pander to them or let them intimidate us.

Detrimental behavior should be prohibited

No business encourages its employees to make whiny complaints, or to stage demonstrations. If an employee has a complaint about the company, he is expected to provide an intelligent analysis of the complaint, and if he repeatedly provides idiotic analyses, the people in the company are likely to ignore his complaints and to tell him to stop it. He might even be fired. Unfortunately, America promotes the philosophy that whining and demonstrations are a sensible method for the citizens to deal with problems.

Every organization would do a better job of dealing with its problems if it required its members to provide intelligent analyses of their complaints, and if those analyses were judged. Demonstrations and whining should be prohibited. People who engage in destructive behavior should be removed from the organization, or suppressed in some manner. With that type of policy, the people who were capable of impressing us with their analyses would qualify for positions of influence, and the people who repeatedly provided idiotic analyses would be told to shut up and stop fooling themselves into believing that they are super geniuses.

When we appease whiny people, we do nothing to help ourselves. Rather, we encourage more whining, demonstrations, and temper tantrums.

No society is making any attempt to analyze their problems or experiment with solutions. This is allowing the problems to persist, or become even worse. Furthermore, by doing nothing to help ourselves, we deny ourselves the opportunity to experience beautiful cities, a more pleasant economic system, and a more impressive government system. We are denying ourselves the opportunity to live with less crime, more stable friendships and marriages, and a wider variety of social activities. We could be experimenting with a better life rather than merely existing from one day to the next, like a group of monkeys.

Humans and animals are “tribal”

Animals, especially the predators, have a strong tendency to form groups that tend to remain separate from the other groups, and to be suspicious of those other groups. As animals evolved into humans, we became more cooperative with one another, but humans still to have a tendency to form groups that consider themselves to be superior to the other groups. This crude behavior can be seen in every organization that we create. For example, businesses tend to fight with one another like packs of wild dogs rather than compete in a friendly manner that inspires everybody. People also tend to form groups according to their political and religious beliefs, and each race tends to associate with its own race.

A lot of people promote the "melting pot" philosophy in which everybody lives among other races and religions in harmony, but human emotions make this philosophy unrealistic. We have to face the fact that people want to segregate so that we can live and work among people that we have a lot in common with. When we follow the philosophy that we should randomly mix people together, we create a society in which people do not get along with their neighbors or coworkers. That creates an unpleasant, lonely social environment. America is promoting the attitude that segregation is bad, but everybody prefers segregation.

One possible method of dealing with this emotion is, as I have described in more detail in other documents, to alter our economic system so that housing and furniture is free, and to give people the freedom to move to whichever home they please, and for any reason they please. This will allow people to live among people that they enjoy.

I've also suggested altering our economic system so that the government helps people find jobs so that nobody has to fear unemployment, and we should allow businesses to hire and fire employees for any reason they please. This will allow people to form businesses in which they are working with people they enjoy rather than being forced to hire people they don't want to work with. Another possibility is to separate the primary groups of people into different cities.

The point I want to bring to your attention is that we have an unlimited number of options available to us. We don't have to continue living as we are right now. We can start experimenting with our options as soon as we find enough people who have the desire and ability to discuss our options and the courage to experiment with them.

If we continue to ignore our options and focus on titillating ourselves with food, sex, and material wealth, our cities will become even more unfriendly because people today are migrating much more than they were thousands of years ago. Every city is becoming increasingly unfriendly as a result of immigrants who cannot or will not coexist with the people who are already there.

We are abused and discriminated against, but not by men or Caucasians

People have a tendency to form groups, and the group that is in the submissive position is very likely to imagine that they are being abused or neglected, and this in turn causes them to waste a lot of their time whining about discrimination and fighting with the authorities. The fighting is also detrimental to the morale of society.

If all members of an organization are extremely similar to one another, such as an organization that consists entirely of Caucasian men of a certain age, height, hair color, eye color, religion, intelligence, and political beliefs, then all of the members will feel equal, but if there are any differences between the members, then the members who are different from those who are dominant may develop the attitude that they are in a submissive position because they are being abused by the dominant group.

For two examples:
• Men dominate every society, and this makes it easy for women to come to the conclusion that men are suppressing and abusing women.
• In America, Caucasians dominate businesses, schools, and the government, and that makes it easy for people of other races to imagine that they are oppressed by Caucasians.

I agree that we are being oppressed and abused, but we are not being abused by men or Caucasians. Rather, we are being abused by Jews, and other criminals, lunatics, and selfish people who are willing to abuse us in order to achieve their goals. For example, if any of us were to try to get a job as a journalist, we would encounter discrimination by the Jews who dominate the media, and if we were to start a business in an area where organized crime networks are active, we would suffer abuse by those crime networks.

There is a lot of abuse, discrimination, murder, lying, plagiarism, rape, pedophilia, burglary, and other crimes, but this abuse is not the result of "men" or "Caucasians". The women and the black Americans who whine about men and Caucasians are making a very serious mistake. The abuse that we see in this world is coming from a minority of the population, and that minority consists of different races, sexes, ages, and religions. If we want to end the abuse, we have to identify the people who are causing the abuse, and we need a law enforcement or military that has the courage to deal with those abusive people rather than ignore them or be intimidated by them.

Some people claim that the military is not allowed to attack American citizens, but the military should be like an immune system. The goal of the military should be to protect our society from enemies, both foreign and domestic. The military should not be afraid to deal with a destructive member of society simply because he has an American citizenship.

Furthermore, it is important to realize that one of the reasons we have so much trouble in this world is that the majority of people are doing nothing about any of our problems. And many people are encouraging problems by feeling sorry for criminals, misfits, weirdos, and retards.

For example, the men who remain silent when women whine about discrimination by men, and especially the men who pity the women, are making our situation worse by encouraging the women to whine. Likewise, the Caucasians who remain silent when the black people whine about discrimination by Caucasians, and especially the Caucasians who pity the black people, are encouraging the black people to whine.

We have to stop feeling sorry for people who whine, and stop letting them intimidate us. The only way to improve life is to analyze our problems, discuss those problems, and experiment with solutions. Whining will ruin morale. We don't consider whining and temper tantrums to be illegal, but we ought to, at least for adults. We should consider such behavior to be unacceptable and animal-like.

To make the situation of discrimination more complicated, humans prefer to being around people who are similar to ourselves. Therefore, there is some truth to the accusations that the people in the dominant positions are favoring their particular group. Black people have a tendency to favor other black people; Catholics have a tendency to favor other Catholics; atheists have a tendency to favor other atheists; and women have a tendency to favor women.

Everybody is biased, and there is nothing we can do to stop it. Nobody has a switch in their brain that can turn off the bias. All we can do is help one another recognize their bias and try to overcome it. We should not complain when a person shows bias; we should complain only when he does nothing to correct it after it has been pointed out to him.

Modern society requires a team

The aspects of modern society that we enjoy the most require us to work together as a team. However, an organization will not be a very productive team when its members are divided into groups that ignore or hate one another, or accuse one another of being oppressive or abusive.

The only way to truly stop men and women, different races, different religions, and other groups of people from whining about oppression and discrimination is to put everybody in their own nation and make everybody live by themselves. That is obviously an unrealistic solution to the problem.

Modern society requires that thousands of people live and work together, and this requires us to push ourselves into controlling our crude emotional cravings and become more cooperative and friendly.

By putting different races, religions, and other groups in their own cities, the people within a city will have to find something besides race and religion to fight about. For example, in African nations where the leaders are as black as the citizens, none of the citizens whine about racial discrimination. They instead fight over differences of political beliefs, religions, and other issues.

You might respond by asking me what difference it makes whether the people in a particular city are fighting over their racial differences or whether they are fighting over their political differences, but it makes a significant difference to the city's social environment because some types of fights are more disruptive than others. I think history shows us that when people fight over racial differences, the fights are more disruptive than when they argue over political opinions.

We can see evidence of this concept when we compare America and Africa. Many black people in America have temper tantrums when the police arrest a black man, whereas the Africans show no such anger towards their police. A society will not be very stable when a significant percentage of the population believes that the police and government are abusing them.

The reason people have more trouble dealing with a difference in race than they do with the difference of political beliefs is because animals have a very strong concern for the visual image, scent, and sound of other creatures. Animals identify their species according to such information, and they also determine which of their members are healthiest according to that information. Human emotions are also strongly concerned about the appearance, scent, and sound of people.

By comparison, our emotions are not directly concerned about intangible concepts, such as the difference in beliefs about economic systems or school systems. When we mix different races together, the emotions of all of the people will be triggered on a regular basis. Their emotions will be frequently trying to warn them, "Be careful! That person does not look or smell correct!"

Since people are genetically unique, these emotions are stronger in some people than others, and they seem less intense in women, but everybody has these emotions. Therefore, mixing different races together results in the people frequently being emotionally stimulated in an unpleasant manner, and the people will have to frequently control themselves.

By comparison, when we encounter people who have different beliefs about transportation systems or artwork for the city park, our emotions are not directly triggered by those intangible beliefs, and this makes it much more relaxing for us to be in contact with people of different beliefs compared to people of different races.

If we have two different cities that are identical in all respects, except that one city consists of only one race, and the other city is a random mixture of races, then the people who are living in the mixed-race city will frequently find their unpleasant emotional feelings triggered, and they will frequently have to suppress their emotions. By comparison, the people in the other city will never have those emotions triggered, and so their lives will be more relaxed.

When we create any type of policy, we need to compare the advantages and disadvantages; the benefits and burdens. What is the benefit from mixing races, and what is the burden? The burden is that we have emotions that do not like racial mixing, and that causes unpleasant feelings and requires that we exert control over ourselves, but what is the benefit? Does the benefit of mixing races outweigh the emotional irritation?

I don't see any benefit to mixing races. A city that mixes races doesn't provide its members with better food, better housing, better social affairs, or a reduction in pollution or crime. The people suffer emotional stress, but they gain nothing in return.

The policy of mixing races might seem wonderful, but we should not follow a policy simply because it seems wonderful. We need to consider how a policy will affect our lives.

Furthermore, if we were to mix all the races, eventually everybody would interbreed and there would be only one race. What is wrong with having different races? Would you want only one species of flower or tree? As long as each race is controlling reproduction and eliminating their criminals, we could say that having different races will make life more interesting for us. If the future generations want to produce only one race, let them deal with it. We have enough problems to deal with; we don't need to burden ourselves with the decision of whether we should interbreed into just one race.

During our lifetimes, and the foreseeable future, I think we will have a much more pleasant world if we let the different races separate into different cities.

It is also important for us to separate the Jews, or whatever you want to call those creatures, from the rest of us. The Jews have no desire or ability to mix with any of us. A society is foolish to accept immigrants who regard themselves as the superior race.

Instead of joining the society that they move into, the Jews remain separate, like bubbles of oil in a pool of water. Instead of participating in Christmas, for example, they have Hanukkah. This causes them to become misfits, and many of them develop the bitter attitude that we find in the story, The Grinch that Stole Christmas.

To make the situation even worse, when Jews are mixed with us, they realize that they are ugly by comparison, and that causes them to react with pity, envy, anger, or hatred. Many of them react by getting cosmetic surgery to make themselves more like humans.

Mixing an ugly race of people with a good-looking race creates an unpleasant society because it puts the ugly people in emotional turmoil. Their miserable attitudes have a detrimental effect on culture. For example, instead of promoting pleasant attitudes, they are more likely to promote a "feel sorry for me" attitude, such as Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer, and The Ugly Duckling.

Should we be free to describe a woman as ugly?

Donald Trump made a remark that implied Carly Fiorina has such an ugly face that people would not want to elect her as president. When confronted about his remark, he was too emotionally weak to admit that he was describing her face as ugly, but I can admit that I consider her face to be ugly. I can also admit that people have a preference for nice-looking people, and as a result of that preference, if I were to vote, and I had a choice between a nice looking candidate and an ugly candidate of equal talent, I would pick the nice-looking candidate.


Carly Fiorina
Actually, to be more accurate, I would not describe Carly as "ugly". Rather, I would describe her as resembling a Neanderthal.
A Neanderthal man

A lot of Jews, if they were in their own nation, would be considered attractive because they would be compared only to other Jews. They appear ugly only when they are compared to humans. The only nice-looking Jews are those that have interbred with humans.

Some people might respond that I am cruel to describe Jews as ugly, but even the Jews consider themselves to be ugly, which is why so many of them want cosmetic surgery, and it is why Barbra Streisand has been asked so many times why she doesn't have her nose altered. Her explanation was that she was worried the surgery might affect her singing ability. If she had been making a living as a secretary, she may have had her nose fixed, and who knows how much other surgery, in order to look more like a human.

When advertising agencies create ads that are intended to grab men's attention, even ads for Israeli men, they seem to prefer women who look like humans, not Jews. For example, the four women in the giant advertisement (notice the size of the man in the photo to the right) along a street in Tel Aviv look more like humans than like Bette Midler or Carly Fiorina.

Every nation today is promoting the attitude that we should feel sorry for people who are ugly, deformed, stinky, have bad breath, bad teeth, and bad posture, but feeling sorry for them does not help them.

Animals and humans are very sensitive to the visual appearance of members of their species. We are repelled by defective and ugly members, and for sensible reasons, as I've described in other documents. We want to push the ugly and retarded people away from us and get them out of our lives.

Unfortunately, the ugly and defective people have the exact same emotions that you and I have. They are also repelled by retarded and ugly people. When they look in the mirror, they are appalled with what they see. They cannot change those emotions, so they spend their entire lives being disgusted with their appearance. They become somewhat accustomed to their ugly appearance, but they never enjoy what they see in the mirror. The exception would be the people who are so mentally retarded that they cannot comprehend the concept of ugliness.

In prehistoric times, people did not have mirrors, so the ugly people did not know they were ugly. The people could get a crude idea of what they looked like by observing their image in a puddle of water, but puddles of water do not provide images that show good detail.

Furthermore, in order to see yourself in a puddle, your face must be horizontal to the ground, and that causes gravity to pull on your face and hair. It also alters the lighting and shadows of your face. People with loose skin will end up with a slightly distorted appearance as a result.

During prehistoric times, the ugly people did not spend their life pouting or wishing for cosmetic surgery because they did not realize how ugly they were. However, other people could see that they were ugly. The ugly children would be tormented by the other children, and the ugly adults would have trouble attracting a spouse and friends. This resulted in the ugly people having less success in reproduction.

The same situation occurs with animals. Ugly animals do not realize that they are ugly, but they have less success in reproduction. Ugly flowers have less success in attracting butterflies and bees. The concern that animals and humans show for appearance might seem cruel, but it is what makes the world so beautiful.

Modern technology allows ugly people to become fully aware of how ugly they are. The end result is that they never feel good about themselves. Their entire lives are wasted feeling sorry for themselves, being envious of the nice-looking people, and hating the world. Businesses exploit these people by offering them a wide variety of cosmetics, hair products, dental braces, various types of implants, and lots of different surgical procedures.

Some of the ugly people react by becoming shy or introverted, and some become overly sensitive to people who look at them. Some of them try to avoid being in photographs, and when they cannot avoid a photograph, some of them try to hide behind other people or in the shadows. Some of them try to hide as much of themselves as possible behind clothing or hats, and some of them try to use their hair or beard to cover as much of their face as possible. The ugly people are being tormented by their own emotions and by the rejections of other people.

Ideally, every society would control reproduction so that everybody is nice-looking, has good health, enjoys life, is capable of holding a job, and fits into society. In such a case, everybody would be happy with themselves and the people that they live with. They would not be interested in reading about Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer or The Ugly Duckling. They would be interested in enjoying life and other people.

By comparison, when we don't control reproduction, every society ends up becoming full of people who cannot hold jobs, who do not like themselves, and who have incompatible personalities. The end result is not a "society". Rather, it is just a gathering of miserable people who dislike themselves and other people, and who avoid and torment one another.

Why was Trump criticized for describing Fiorina as ugly?

The political candidates regularly make idiotic, inaccurate, vague, contradictory, and confusing remarks, but most of the voters, journalists, and other people remain silent. They do not criticize the candidates for their stupid remarks or demand that they correct their mistakes.

By comparison, when Donald Trump implied that Fiorina was ugly, many of the people who are normally silent suddenly became active. They demanded that Donald Trump apologize. Of all of the thousands of idiotic, vague, and confusing remarks of the candidates have made, why is that the only remark that people became upset with?

I would say that the reason for this is because most people behave like a stupid animal that follows its emotions rather than its intellect. Most people do not think, even though they have some intelligence.

When the typical person watches a political debate or other television programs they essentially turn off their intellectual center, relax, and let their emotions react. Their mind and body is in an idle state.

Since their emotions are not triggered by idiotic or vague remarks, the candidates can make such remarks over and over without causing the people to come out of their idle state. However, when Donald Trump makes a remark about a woman being ugly, everybody's emotions are triggered. This causes their hearts to start beating faster, and the people become more active and alert. Since the emotion was unpleasant, they become upset that Donald Trump just triggered unpleasant feelings in their mind. They become upset with Donald Trump.

If humans became emotionally upset by vague remarks, unrealistic promises, or confusing remarks, then people would regularly become upset as they listened to the debates. Or, if people were emotionally pleased when they heard something intelligent, then they would be emotionally stimulated in a pleasant way whenever somebody said something intelligent.

Unfortunately, we become upset by idiotic remarks, and impressed by intelligent remarks, only if we use our intellect to analyze the remarks.

This issue is similar to what I mentioned in a previous document in regards to how we react to crimes. To remind you of that concept, our emotions are triggered to an extreme extent by a murder, and as a result, we want to stop murders, and we want to hurt the people who murder. However, our emotions are not triggered by intangible crimes, such as many types of financial crimes in the stock market, and as a result, even those those crimes can cause more suffering to more people than a murder, we do almost nothing to stop people from committing those types of crimes, and when we catch those criminals, we rarely treat them as "criminals", and we do almost nothing to stop them from getting into influential positions and causing more trouble.

As long as we continue to create laws according to our emotional feelings, and as long as we continue to select government officials according to our emotions, we are going to continue along our idiotic path in which we are more concerned with murders than we are with crimes that destroy the nation, and we will be more upset with candidates who describe a woman as ugly than we are about candidates who make stupid remarks.

The more resistant a group of people are to thinking, and the more stupid they are, the less of a concern they will have for idiotic candidates and intangible crimes, and the less impressed they will be by people who have something intelligent to say, or who are honest and responsible.

Getting back to the issue of why so many people criticized Donald Trump, some people have made remarks that Chris Christie would have trouble getting elected President because he is fat, but they were not told to apologize for their remark.

The reason that Trump was reprimanded for calling Fiorina ugly is because we have an intense dislike of ugly people, and we are especially sensitive to the physical appearance of women. By comparison, although we are appalled with obese people, our emotions are not disgusted by fat people. Actually, we consider overweight people to be friendly and pleasant. Santa Claus and his wife, for example, are fat.

As I have mentioned many times, humans tend to react to problems just like animals. Specifically, we either run away, or we become violent. When Donald Trump said that Fiorina was ugly, he stimulated unpleasant emotions in our minds, and most people reacted to those unpleasant feelings by either ignoring his remark, or becoming angry at him for triggering those unpleasant feelings.

Most people react the same way when they encounter retarded people or see them on television. Retarded people evoke intense and unpleasant emotional feelings in us. Our emotions want us to avoid retarded people; to push them away from us. Most people react to those unpleasant feelings by trying to ignore the defective aspects of the retarded person and focus on their more "normal" qualities. Some people react by feeling sorry for the retarded person and treating him as a helpless child that needs their care and protection.

When a man is described as "tall", nobody cringes or becomes upset that he is being referred to as "tall". The reason is because describing a man as tall does not evoke unpleasant emotional feelings. Actually, animals are impressed by large males, so people are more likely to be impressed by the tall man. Of course, there is a point at which a man is so tall that he becomes "defective" rather than a "tall man".

By comparison, our emotions do not like short or skinny men, and as a result, men do not want to be described as "a short man," or as "a skinny man".

If a man were introduced in public as "a tall man", he would be proud of himself and his height. However, if a short man were introduced as "a short man", his unpleasant emotional feelings would be evoked, and he would wonder why the person would choose to describe him with a word that evokes unpleasant feelings. He would likely assume that the person chose that word in order to upset him and/or influence the audience into disliking him. Or to rephrase that, he would assume that the person is "insulting" him or trying to hurt him.

We have to be careful when we describe men as "short" or "skinny" because our emotions dislike short and skinny men, and the short and skinny men don't like themselves, either. Therefore, the men who are short and skinny are likely to interpret those adjectives as "insults" rather than as "descriptions".

Our emotions expect women to be shorter than men, so women don't feel insulted when somebody describes them as short, but our emotions expect women to be physically attractive, and as a result, women are very sensitive to being described as "ugly".

Another example of this issue is the manner in which we treat and describe midgets and dwarves. Our emotions are disgusted by those type of defects, and the emotions of dwarves and midgets are also as disgusted with such defects. They do not like themselves, and they do not want their unpleasant emotions to be evoked. Many of the dwarves and midgets are struggling to ignore their defects and pretend that they are simply "little people".

Many of the dwarves and midgets become upset when we refer to them as dwarves or midgets because when we say those words we are essentially poking a pin into their fantasy balloon and forcing them to face the reality that they are genetic defects, not "little people". When they are forced to face that reality, unpleasant emotions are triggered inside their mind. Many of them react to the unpleasant feelings by becoming angry at us for making them feel miserable. They want us to participate in their fantasy in which they are little people rather than defective people.

It is not our fault that some people are midgets or dwarves, and we are not going to fix their defects by pretending that they are normal people, or by referring to them as "little people". They have to learn to deal with reality.

Some people might respond that we should try to make life more pleasant for the retards by playing along with their fantasies, but that philosophy is impractical. The reason is because everybody has genetic defects. There are no perfect people. Therefore, if we promote the philosophy that everybody should participate in everybody else's fantasy in order to make them feel better about themselves, then we have the burden of participating in thousands of different fantasies.

It also puts the burden on us of having to learn a lot of arbitrary words and phrases that people want to use as descriptions of themselves. For example, some homosexuals want us to refer to them as "gay"; some midgets and dwarves want us to refer to them as "little people"; and some obese people want us to refer to them as "plus size". It is easy for us to learn these words when only a few dozen people are requesting them, but if we encourage this behavior, there will eventually be thousands of people who want special words to describe their particular problem.

It makes sense for us to stop referring to Native Americans as "Indians" because Columbus made a mistake when he thought he had landed in India. This mistake should have been corrected centuries ago, but there are no authorities of language to stop people from using words in idiotic manners, and so it is still going on today. However, referring to midgets as "little people" and referring to homosexuals as "gay" is not correcting a mistake or improving our language.

It would be idiotic for a society to follow a philosophy of trying to appease every person who is unhappy with what he is. It would be more sensible for the schools to teach children to analyze themselves, discover their strengths and limitations, and learn to deal with whatever they are rather than create a fantasy for themselves in which they pretend that they are something better.

Everybody has defects, and the people who cannot face that fact should be told that it is their tough luck that they lack the ability to cope with reality. It is not our responsibility to feel sorry for them, or participate in whatever fantasy they want to create for themselves. We don't have to use whatever special words they want to use to describe them, either. We don't owe them anything, and we are not going to help them by giving them pity or joining them in their fantasies.

Likewise, a lot of people are ugly, and there is nothing we can do to fix their problems. It's not our responsibility to feel sorry for them or pretend that they are good-looking. They have to learn to accept what they are. If they cannot accept their ugliness, that simply means that in addition to being ugly, they also lack the ability to cope with reality. That is even worse than being ugly. An ugly person who can deal with the fact that he is ugly is better than an ugly person who wastes his life pouting, hating, and being envious.

The only good solution to the problem of dwarves, midgets, ugly people, and retards is to prevent them from reproducing. It is idiotic to allow people who don't like themselves to produce more people who don't like themselves. Since genetic defects accumulate, if we do not control reproduction, eventually everybody in the future will be so defective that everybody will hate themselves.

I do not expect the majority of people to be able to handle any of these issues, or be able to calmly deal with their defects. I do not expect the majority of people to be very honest, either, or to be dependable or responsible. I expect the majority of people to continue behaving like monkeys.

However, there is no reason that we have to let the majority of people dominate our world. We could restrict leadership to the people who show better qualities. We could restrict leadership to people who can face the problems of the modern world, and who are capable of experimenting with society in order to reduce these problems and improve our lives.

Jennifer Lawrence complains that women cannot state their opinions

Lawrence's other complaint was that women are not free to state their opinions in the same manner as men. She complains that women have to be careful about what they say and how they say it. She complains that women have to present their opinions in a more submissive manner in order to avoid being perceived as aggressive or bratty.

A journalist for the Washington Post responded to Lawrence's complaint with a list of how famous remarks by men would have to be reworded in order for people to accept them from a woman. These women complain that women are under pressure by men to behave in a timid, submissive manner.

I agree that men expect women to be submissive rather than forceful. The reason is because we are intelligent monkeys, and among monkeys, the males take the leadership roles, and the females are in a submissive role and raise the babies. However, the differences between males and females are not due to sexism; they are due to evolution.

The qualities that we see in men and women made sense for prehistoric people, but many of those qualities are causing trouble for us today. From the point of view of women, it is the men who need to change, but from the point of view of men, it is the women who need to change. A more sensible attitude would be that we need to alter society and our culture to deal with this new world.

We need to start experimenting with our economic system, our attitudes towards marriage, and our procedures for finding a spouse. We need to experiment with schools so that they do a better job of preparing children for this modern world. We need to develop a wider variety of cultural activities so that our city offers us much more than just shopping. We need to experiment with recreational activities so that more people are inspired to do something rather than sit in front of a TV and watch other people do something.

Women are not going to improve their lives simply by whining about men. And we are not going to improve anything if we continue to waste our lives pursuing money, fame, and other simple emotional titillation. We must start studying ourselves and experimenting with our lives and our future.


Why are there so many problems in the human world?

If we could measure how well adapted an animal species is to its environment, we would find that a graph of that measurement creates a bell curve. The majority of animals would be in the middle, and they would be considered to be adapted to an "average" extent. A small minority of animals would be better adapted to their environment, and a small minority would be less adapted.

For example, if we could measure how well the reindeer can handle cold winters, we would find that the majority of reindeer are average in their ability to handle cold winters, and a small minority are less bothered by cold weather, and a small minority have more trouble dealing with the cold weather.

If the environment were to change significantly as a result of plate tectonics, such as to make the winters colder, we would find that the bell curve has shifted. We would find that the majority of reindeer are not well adapted to the new environment. However, through the generations the reindeer who were better adapted to the new environment would dominate, and the bell curve would slowly shift back to its normal position.

Now consider how this applies to humans. If we could measure a person's satisfaction with life, and if we could go back in time and measure that quality in prehistoric humans, we would find that the majority of prehistoric humans were average in their enjoyment of life, and that a small minority was better adapted and enjoyed life even more, and a small minority was not so well adapted and was less satisfied with life than the ordinary person.

During the past few thousand years, our environment has changed dramatically, and I think that if we could measure people's satisfaction with life, we would find that the bell curve has shifted, and that a significantly larger percentage of people today are not as happy with life as compared to people 50,000 years ago. However, if we were to ask people if they think people today are happier than people thousands of years ago, I think most people would claim that people today are happier.

I have heard a lot of people make remarks about how difficult and miserable life must have been for our prehistoric ancestors, especially those in the northern climates. We come to this conclusion because we imagine how we would feel if we were transported back in time 50,000 years, and if we didn't have any of our modern shoes, homes, furnaces, or sleeping bags. Most of us would suffer tremendously if we had to walk in the ice and snow virtually naked, and most of us would have a very difficult time sleeping virtually naked on cold, hard ground.

I think most people today would also have trouble dealing with the lack of sleep that they would get during prehistoric times. For example, during winter, when there was an ice or rain storm, the people would get wet and wake up, and they would not be able to dry off, possibly for days. How many people today could handle that?
If animals could speak to us, those in the cold climates would not complain about the cold or the ice. The reason is simply because the animals that cannot handle their environment are not as successful in reproduction or survival.

We assume that our prehistoric ancestors were suffering, but the majority of them would have been adapted to their environment to an "average" extent, and some of them would have been so well adapted that they would have loved their environment.

The majority of our prehistoric ancestors would have no more trouble sleeping on hard, cold ground than a polar bear, dog, or wolf. The reason is simply because those of our ancestors who could not handle the conditions of their environment were not as successful in survival and reproduction. Most of the people 50,000 years ago could handle their environment and enjoy their life.

If we could go back in time, we would find that only a small minority of people were whining and miserable. Most of them had no trouble walking barefoot in snow, and when the rain woke them up in the middle of the night, most of them had no trouble dealing with it. They did not need soft, fluffy mattresses, just as cats don't need mattresses. They did not need furnaces, either, just as polar bears do not need furnaces. They did not need shoes, just as reindeer do not need shoes.

Humans evolved for shortages, not abundances

Animals and humans evolved for an environment in which they were always suffering from a shortage of food, sleep, relaxation, children, and water. Their emotions were designed to give them what they had to work for; namely, food, water, sleep, relaxation, status, and children. There is no sense giving an animal a craving for something it has an abundance of and has no need to work for, such as air. No animal has a craving for air, or any desire to own the atmosphere or stockpile air.

Modern humans have misinterpreted their emotional feelings by assuming that what we want is what we need, and that to enjoy life, we must satisfy our cravings. However, if we were to eat as much food as our emotions want, and if we were to eat the foods that are the most appealing to us, we would become obese and sickly. If any of us were capable of relaxing or sleeping as much as our emotions desire, we would spend most of the day lounging, like a pet dog, and we would get up to move around only when our muscles became irritated from lack of use. If we could own as much land and material items as our emotions desire, we would have a pile of material items as large as the moon, and we would claim all of the land in the universe. If a man could have sex with as many women as he was attracted to, he would have sex with millions of women. If any of us could win as many awards as our emotions crave, we would have so many awards that we would need warehouses to store them.

It was sensible for our primitive ancestors to pursue their emotional cravings because they could never take these pursuits to absurd extremes, but modern technology has enabled us to produce excessive amounts of the things we crave, and so today people need to control their cravings. We will not improve our lives by giving ourselves more of what we crave. We need to understand our minds and figure out what will provide us with the most satisfying life. And we need people in leadership positions who can promote this philosophy, as opposed to what we have now, which are talking monkeys whose lives are devoted to grabbing as many material items as possible.

How many people today are enjoying their life?

During the past few thousand years we have made some dramatic changes to our environment. People today no longer need the ability to walk barefoot in snow or sleep in the forest, but we have many "problems" that our primitive ancestors never had to deal with, such as school, jobs, taxes, money, laws, drugs, private property, crime, gambling, alcohol, and abundant supplies of food.

If we could measure everybody's satisfaction with life, what would we find? Are the majority of people today as happy with life as the majority would have been 50,000 years ago? I don't think so, and I base this on the behavior that I see around me. For some examples:

• There are lots of people committing crimes. Are those people enjoying life as much as their primitive ancestors did? I don't think so.

Animals, especially the males, have a craving to be important and respected, and humans have the same emotions. Criminals do not get respect, and therefore, I don't believe anybody truly wants to be a criminal. I think the people who turn to crime are doing so because they are failures, misfits, and/or mentally ill. They are having trouble coping with modern society and earning what they want in an honest manner. I think they would be happier if they were transported back in time 50,000 years. In a primitive era, all but the most retarded criminals would be able to successfully hunt animals, make tools, and make fur coats, and they would be respected members of society rather than outcasts.

• An enormous number of people are frequently crying, pouting, hating, arguing, or wishing that they had a different life. Did any of our primitive ancestors waste as much of their time on such miserable activities?

• Lots of people are contemplating suicide, abusing drugs, or are so lonely that their best friends are televisions or dogs. Were any of our primitive ancestors as miserable and lonely as people are today? How common was suicide 50,000 years ago? Some people today use knives or razors to cut themselves (photo); how many people 50,000 years ago were using flint knives to cut themselves?

• A lot of people have trouble dealing with our modern economic system. They don't like following work schedules, working in teams, having people review their job performance, or following orders from a boss. They are struggling to figure out how to make a living without getting a job. They want to be their own boss. They are capable of giving orders to other people, but they have trouble following orders.

Some of those people end up doing something useful for society, but many of them end up in businesses that have no value to us, such as telemarketing, think tanks, charities, religions, and self-help groups. Many of these people are exploiting the misery of the elderly, obese, sickly, mentally ill, or lonely people.

Are the people who dislike modern jobs enjoying life as much as their primitive ancestors did? Perhaps some are, but if all of those people were transported back in time 50,000 years, they would be very well adapted to life because they would have the freedom to live their life in any manner they please without dealing with paperwork, laws, government, managers, job performance reviews, time schedules, or calendars.

• An enormous number of people are struggling to become wealthy, such as by purchasing lottery tickets, investing in the stock market, working enormous numbers of hours each day, or starting businesses. However, all of these people are much wealthier than all of their primitive ancestors. Are any of them truly happier than their primitive ancestors? If so, why are so many wealthy people putting so much effort into acquiring more money? Why are they never satisfied with what they have?

I don't believe that the majority of people are satisfied with their life. Most people might claim to be happy, but how would they know? They have never lived any other life. I think they are unhappy based on all of the fighting, stress, crying, and other unpleasant behavior that they show on a regular basis.

Our primitive ancestors were not suffering. They were essentially on a camping trip for their entire lives. People today enjoy camping trips simply because we enjoy that primitive social environment in which we are in close contact with people that we are compatible with. We enjoy waking up in the morning and being surrounded by people that we are compatible with. We enjoy spending the day with them, and swimming with them in the rivers, and having dinner with them, and talking or singing with them in the evening.

I think most people are overwhelmed with the modern world, and they are suffering as a result. They cannot cope with the material wealth, food, drugs, gambling, abortion, euthanasia, crime, and other issues that we have to deal with. They are under a lot of stress, and they are experiencing a lot of frustration and disappointments. People today also torment themselves with loneliness by living in large houses on large plots of land that are far away from their friends.

We are our worst enemy

Religious people explain the chaos and suffering of the human world as being due to the devil, the atheists, and the people who follow a false religion. The conservatives blame the world's problems on liberals, and the liberals blame the world's problems on conservatives. However, every problem we suffer from can be attributed to the actions of one or more humans. We are inflicting problems on ourselves.

An example of this concept is the recent election in Ohio in which the voters turned down some legislation to legalize marijuana. If the people in Ohio were truly capable of coping with the issues of the modern world, then they would have been able to have intelligent discussions on what their policy towards marijuana and other drugs should be. However, there was never any intelligent discussions in Ohio. Instead, most people in Ohio ignored the issue, and those that got involved behaved like selfish, stupid monkeys who had no concern for society and were only thinking of how to titillate their emotional cravings for status and wealth. For example, the people who were promoting the legalization of marijuana wrote the legislation in such a manner that only 10 farms would be allowed to grow marijuana.

In case you fail to grasp the significance of that, it is equivalent to a group of people who propose a law that allows only 10 people to own food markets in their state, or allow only 10 people to build houses.

Some people complained that this legislation would set up a marijuana monopoly for the small group of people who had created the legislation, and Woody Taft, one of the members of that group, responded with such remarks as, "How can you call 10 competing people a monopoly?"

Some people also complained that the group would make a lot of profit from the legislation, and Taft tried to justify it by pointing out that there would be some other people profiting, also: "A lot of the other entrepreneurs stand to make a lot of money from this."

The people who were promoting that marijuana policy were not thinking of what is best for society. They were behaving exactly like stupid, selfish monkeys who were trying to grab all of the bananas for themselves.

No society will be able to solve its problems when it is dominated by people who are so incredibly selfish and so much like a monkey that they design laws according to how they can grab more stuff for themselves.

It is interesting to consider that the people who were promoting that selfish legislation were wealthier than the majority of people alive today, so why were they struggling to use the marijuana issue to become even wealthier? Are they simply so much like an animal that they cannot control their cravings for material wealth? Or are they suffering a miserable life and hoping that they will finally be able to enjoy life if they can become even more wealthy?

We don't know enough about the human mind to figure out why an absurdly wealthy person is willing to abuse us in order to become even more wealthy, but we can safely say that people who behave in that manner are not suitable for leadership positions. They should not be influencing our lives or our future.

In order to improve our world, we need to identify the people who are capable of controlling their selfishness to such an extent that they can have discussions about what would be best for society. We need to put those type of people into influential positions, and we need to remove the talking monkeys whose only goal in life is to grab more items and land.

People who create laws according to how they can profit from the laws should not be permitted to influence our future.We should restrict leadership to the people who can justify their laws as I've described in other documents; namely, by providing us with an intelligent explanation of the advantages and disadvantages of the law from the point of view of society.

Why did they think they could get away with it?

Why would the people promoting that marijuana legislation believe that they could get away with such selfish behavior? The question might seem meaningless, but it is very significant. Whenever we catch a person or a group behaving in an appalling manner, we should contemplate such questions as, "Why would they think that they could get away with such horrible behavior?"

For example, during the 9/11 attack, the Jews broadcast the demolition of the World Trade Center buildings on television, thereby allowing the entire world to have video evidence of their crime. Why would they believe that they could get away with demolishing those buildings on television? Why didn't they demolish those buildings in a more secretive manner?"

If you spend some time thinking about that question, you should come to the conclusion that the Jews believed that they could safely broadcast the demolition because they have been successful in committing other crimes in front of us, such as the murder of President Kennedy; instigating the world wars; fooling people into believing the Germans gassed and burned 6 million Jews; and bombing the USS Liberty.

Whenever we find that a person or organization has achieved a success in some activity, it is almost certain that if we look through their history we will find that they have been working up to that success. For example, when a company produces a new model of automobile, if we look through their history we will find that they have been developing automobiles for many years. If we find that an athlete or a sports team is successful in some athletic event, if we look through their past we will find that they have been practicing and training for that event.

It is very unlikely for a person or organization to be successful with something that they have never done before, unless they are doing something very simplistic. We almost always have to go through a trial and error process to be successful with a difficult task. Also, we tend to start with a simple task, and as we learn more about the issue, we work up to the more complex tasks.

Now consider how this concept applies to the free enterprise system. The people promoting the marijuana legislation were behaving in a very selfish manner, and they made no attempt to hide their selfishness. Why would such wealthy people believe they could get away with such obviously selfish behavior?

Our conclusion should be that this is not the first time that they have behaved in such a selfish manner. Looking through history shows us that wealthy people promote selfish legislation on a regular basis, and they are frequently successful in getting the legislation approved.

Wealthy people are constantly promoting selfish legislation, and they usually justify it in the same manner each time; namely, by telling us that it's going to create jobs and help the economy. Because no society has any standards for people in influential positions, these selfish people are under no obligation to back up their claims with some sensible evidence. Furthermore, no matter how inaccurate their claims turn out to be, they never suffer any repercussions.

It makes no sense to justify a policy on the grounds that it "creates jobs" because every project creates jobs. It is easy to create jobs. For example, we can create lots of jobs simply by creating additional government agencies, and one of the fastest ways of creating a wide variety of jobs would be for the military to drop bombs and napalm at random around the nation. This would create jobs for the medical personnel, pharmaceutical companies, funeral businesses, construction crews, and thousands of other people.

The wealthy people have been successful with the "We will create jobs" deception for centuries, and without any repercussions. None of our government officials, think tanks, journalists, economics experts, economics professors, or winners of the Nobel Prize in economics will point out that it is idiotic to justify a policy by claiming that it "creates jobs". The businessmen are free to use this deception over and over without worrying about being fired or criticized. And they never have to worry about being arrested for their deception. Actually, many people praise the deceptive businessmen for being "clever".

The wealthy people who were promoting that marijuana legislation assumed that they would be just as successful with that selfish legislation as they were with other selfish legislation. Unfortunately for them, they failed. I suppose what happened is that the potential profits from marijuana sales were so high that the people designing the legislation could not control their greed, which resulted in them restricting marijuana production to only 10 farms, but that made the legislation so obviously selfish that even the dumb people could figure out that they were being abused.

The Keystone oil pipeline will create jobs!

In November 2015, President Obama turned down the Keystone XL oil pipeline project. This is another of the thousands of projects that wealthy people justify on the grounds that it will "create jobs". It is also a good example of how our free enterprise system is encouraging a lot of wasteful fights between business owners and government officials.

Wealthy people have been pushing for the Keystone pipeline since 2008. That is nine years of effort, and they are not going to stop, so there will be more years of effort in the future. This might seem insignificant, but consider that all of the people who have been pushing for the Keystone pipeline are just one small group of people involved with this type of activity. There are wealthy people all around the nation regularly pushing government officials into giving them some selfish legislation, tax advantages, or other favors.

Try to visualize the situation from the point of view of a god who is looking down on the earth. Try to visualize thousands of business executives and other wealthy people scattered around the nation putting a lot of time and effort into devising selfish legislation for themselves, and then spending a lot of time pushing government officials into approving it. How many thousands of hours are they putting into this activity every year? All of these people and government officials could be doing something beneficial for society, but instead they are fighting with each other over selfish policies, just like packs of wild dogs fighting over a dead animal.

Is the Keystone oil pipeline beneficial to us? We will never know because nobody is interested in analyzing the issue from the point of view of how it affects society. The wealthy people who are promoting the project are merely trying to deceive us into believing that it will create jobs, and the government officials never provide intelligent analyses of anything, either. One of the reasons our government gave for turning down the pipeline project was because they worried it might adversely affect the climate of the planet. How is that a sensible reason for turning down a project?

We know so little about the climate that we cannot predict the weather a week in advance, and we know even less about the climate and atmosphere of centuries ago. How much nitrogen was in the atmosphere 1 million years ago, 50 million years ago, and a billion years ago? Is the nitrogen level increasing or decreasing? What effect do humans have on the nitrogen level? Should we create more nitrogen fertilizers to reduce the level of nitrogen in the atmosphere and put some of it into the soil and ocean?

What effect do humans have on the dust in the atmosphere? Some dust comes from outer space, but some of it is created by humans. Why not worry about the dust we create?

And what about the airplanes that are spreading soot and ice particles high up in the atmosphere? Why not worry about the effect they are having on the climate?

If you wonder why the world is such a mess, just observe the people around you. Millions of wealthy people are constantly struggling to deceive us; our government is full of criminals and incompetent nitwits; many scientists are dishonest and untrustworthy; and the majority of people are apathetic, selfish sheep who don't care about anything except themselves. Only a small minority of the population seems interested in improving society and trying to control their animal cravings.

In a better economic system, we would not justify a policy simply because it creates jobs, and we would not turn a project down over an issue that we are incredibly ignorant about, such as the Earth's climate. We would instead be concerned about the benefit each job provides to society, and we would also be concerned about the effect the job has on the person doing it. The government and business leaders should behave like parents who would want their children to have jobs that are beneficial to the family, and who also want those jobs to be safe for the children to do.

The economy is degrading into a battle zone

During prehistoric times, all of the people within a tribe were nearly identical to one another in regards to material wealth. They were using a free enterprise system, but their nomadic lifestyle and low level of technology made it difficult for a person to become much wealthier than the other people. It was also difficult for people in that era to deceive one another in business because the products were so simple. In that era, people would have been happy with the free enterprise system.

During the past few centuries our economic environment has changed dramatically. In our modern world, most people must work in teams. Business owners have the option of evenly dividing the profits between themselves and their employees, thereby giving everybody in the team exactly the same income, but they never choose that option.

Business owners could also choose to give themselves only 10% or 50% more money than their employees, but they don't choose those options, either. Instead, our inherent selfishness causes business owners to pay their employees as little as possible, and to make themselves as wealthy as possible.

The complexity of products today also makes it easy for businesses to sell low-quality, deceptive, and defective products.

The free enterprise system does not require that we behave in a selfish manner. We are choosing to do this simply because we are selfish monkeys.

Our selfish nature causes us to fight each other for money, and the end result is that we have significant differences in income. This in turn encourages people to separate into two primary groups that are constantly fighting with each other. These groups are not organized, so they do not have names or leaders, but we often describe these groups as the "workers" and the "wealthy".

As I described in other documents, I think we will create a noticeably more pleasant society when people are treated in a more equal manner and have a more equal level of material wealth.

People such as Jennifer Lawrence and Emma Watson claim to believe in equality and fairness, but they don't want equality or fairness. They and the other wealthy people want to be phenomenally wealthy Kings and Queens, and they want the rest of us to be their submissive peasants who pamper them with mansions, yachts, cleaning services, televisions, cell phones, medical services, and enormous amounts of other material items and services.

Our free enterprise system is putting people into a competitive battle for money, but the people who are successful in this battle are not necessarily the people who can provide us with sensible guidance for our future. Actually, the winners of this type of battle seem to be better described as aggressive, selfish, neurotic monkeys who are never satisfied with what they have and are constantly trying to grab more.

The people who get into influential positions should be spending their time analyzing society and looking for ways to make our cities more pleasant, our schools more efficient, our jobs more enjoyable, and our leisure activities more useful. They should not be trying to devise methods to provide themselves with a bigger pile of bananas, or trying to eliminate their competitors.

“No! Changing the economic system is too risky!”
We must also get the "conservatives" out of top leadership positions because they cannot create laws according to what is best for society, either. When they create laws, they merely follow their ancestors, just like stupid sheep. They look for excuses to do nothing and keep everything as it is. They warn us about what might happen if we try something that we have never done before. They are not willing to think for themselves or explore their options.

We demand that airline pilots prove to us that they can fly airplanes, and we fire them if they show bad behavior, but we allow people to get into influential positions of government, media, businesses, and schools without any concern for whether they are mentally ill, selfish, or dishonest.

Most of the people who are in influential positions are considered to be intelligent according to our current school system, but our leaders need more than intelligence. We need leaders who can control their emotions, have a concern for society, and have the desire and ability to analyze problems and participate in discussions. Furthermore, we need leaders who have the courage to experiment with possible solutions.

Schools should prepare children for leadership

Our primitive ancestors could let the men fight with each other for leadership positions, but in this modern world we need to be able to analyze the leadership abilities of men, and we need to be able to replace those who are not doing a good job. This requires restricting voting to the people who have the desire and ability to analyze their leaders and pass judgment on which of them needs to be replaced.

Schools could help in this process by giving children assignments in which they practice analyzing a person's leadership abilities. These type of assignments will help the children decide if they are interested in becoming a voter or leader, and if they are any good at the task.

We need to change our school system to fit this modern world. Our schools are designed to teach children to memorize information and perform math operations, and this was valuable centuries ago because our ancestors did not have any good methods of storing, finding, or distributing information, and the only aid they had for helping them with math operations was a crude piece of paper and a crude pen.

As we gain more information about the world, and as computers become more advanced, it becomes increasingly less important and practical for students to memorize information. It is more important for modern schools to give students practice in locating information when they need it. It is also becoming increasingly less important for adults to have math skills. It is more important for them to learn how to use computers to do math operations.

Some parents have complained that their children are using calculators to do basic arithmetic, but most adults today don't need math skills. It is more important for people today to know how to use computers to do the math operations. A person who knows how to use CAD/CAM software and CNC machines, for example, can design and create mechanical parts faster and more accurately than a person who has extensive math skills but does not know how to use computers or CNC machines.

If the only talent a person today has is the ability to memorize information and do arithmetic, he can be replaced by a computer. Schools should not praise those type of students as "intelligent". Instead, students should be given practice doing the tasks that computers cannot do, such as analyzing the issues that modern humans must deal with, and performing critical reviews of people in influential positions. The students who impress us with their analyses should be considered intelligent, even if they are not good at memorizing information or doing math.

For a simplistic example, imagine if students were given the following assignment, which is based on information from the DEA website:

America had 209 million people in 1972 , and the DEA had 2,775 employees. During the following years both the nation and the DEA slowly increased in size.

By 2014 the American population grew by a factor of 1.5 to 318 million people, and the DEA increased its employees by a factor of 4 to 11,055.

As the DEA grew in size, they intercepted more drugs and arrested more drug dealers but rather than reduce the use of illegal drugs, their use seems to have continuously increased since 1972. Why is the use of illegal drugs increasing even though the DEA is increasing in size faster than the population?

For each of the following three conclusions, explain why you agree or disagree with it, and if you can think of a more sensible conclusion, explain that one, also.

a)
The DEA has successfully prevented a lot of drugs from reaching the market, but they are such a small organization that they can stop only a small percentage of the total amount. Therefore, we need to increase their budget to a realistic level so that they can hire enough employees to have a significant impact on drugs.

b)
The DEA is having trouble reducing the use of illegal drugs because the liberals are making it difficult for the police to arrest drug dealers and keep them in jail. The solution to this problem is to elect more conservatives who are tough on crime. We also need more jails, and we need jails to be privatized because free enterprise can do a better job than a bureaucracy.

c)
There is no evidence that the interception of drugs by the DEA can reduce the use of drugs any more than a hurricane which sinks a drug dealer's boat. Furthermore, the philosophy that we can stop drug use by punishing drug dealers and drug users has had a 100% failure rate all throughout history. We need to experiment with another drug policy.

By giving children assignments in which they have to analyze real social problems, the children will be able to decide whether they enjoy those type of analyses, and the teachers will get an idea of which students are good at such tasks. We could restrict voting to the people who have demonstrated an ability to impress us with their analyses.

We would never hire a person as a mathematician if he disliked doing math problems, or if his analysis of math problems was idiotic. We should apply the same concept to voters and leaders. The people who do not like to analyze political candidates, government officials, or social problems, or who create vague, confusing, or idiotic analyses, should be prohibited from voting and taking leadership positions.

Most people in leadership positions today are choosing A or B as the correct answer to that simplistic question about the DEA. Those people might be intelligent according to our current school system, which puts a lot of emphasis on the ability to memorize information and do arithmetic, but these people do not have the ability to analyze the modern social problems, and they do not have the courage to consider different policies or experiment with society.

The type of people we have in leadership positions today cannot provide us with intelligent advice in regards to crime, marriage, the economy, drugs, or leisure activities. Some of them are so focused on profit that all they can do is look for ways to become wealthier, and others are like stupid animals who mimic one another and are afraid to try something new. None of them are capable of exploring our options and leading us into a better life.

Animals are inherently deceptive

Deception is a natural part of an animal's life. Animals regularly try to deceive, manipulate, and intimidate one another, and they are also very easily deceived, manipulated, and intimidated.

For example, when a cat encounters a dog, the cat will try to make itself look larger and stronger by arching its back and making its hairs stick out. That trick works on animals because they are too stupid to analyze what they are looking at and realize that the large image is actually a small cat with a lot of fur. Deception is a valuable tool for animals because of their lack of intelligence.

Animals regularly try to deceive one another, and for a variety of reasons. For example, they do it when they are frightened; when they are competing for social status; and when they are competing for a mate.

It is also important to note that animals have no shame or guilt when they deceive another animal. When a gorilla pounds his chest and tries to look frightening, for example, he has no guilt that he is pretending to be stronger and more courageous than he really is. An animal's goal is to satisfy its emotional cravings, and it will do anything necessary to achieve those goals. An animal is always proud of itself, no matter how it behaves. Animals are never ashamed of themselves, no matter how deceptive and abusive they are.

When a pet dog does something it should not do, such as take meat from a dinner table, it might display a submissive gesture when caught, and humans often interpret that display as shame or embarrassment, but submissive gestures are not the same as shame, embarrassment, or guilt. I don't think animals can feel guilt. They seem to be too arrogant and stupid to have such a feeling.

Most people don't consider animals to be deceptive because animals do not use deception for diabolical purposes. They use deception to protect themselves, or to attract a mate. Their deception seems harmless, and it is sometimes quite entertaining, such as when a male peacock tries to impress a female with his display of feathers. Animals don't have the intelligence to use deception in diabolical manners.

As animals evolved into humans, we eventually acquired enough intelligence to be able to understand how our actions can hurt other people. This gave us the ability to experience what we refer to as guilt or shame. However, we are still so similar to animals that we continue to deceive one another on a regular basis. People often feel guilty for their deception, but they continue to do it anyway. And the Christians have a solution to the guilt; specifically, they ask their god for forgiveness, and he always forgives them no matter how horrible they behave.

Humans have not yet evolved into a truly honest species. For example, men and women regularly try to deceive one another when they are looking for a spouse, and nobody shows any guilt about it. And many people, possibly everybody, exaggerates, lies, or deceives to some extent when they are looking for a job, or trying to get elected to a government office, but do any of us feel guilty about it?
“Here little boy, have some candy!”

Unlike animals, humans have enough intelligence to use deception for diabolical purposes, such as when adults trick children into getting into their car, or when a person hides the fact that he has a venereal disease and spreads it to other people, or when a person claims to be an IRS agent and tricks a person into giving him money that he supposedly owes to the government, or when Jews spray swastikas on their synagogues and trick people into believing that there are Nazis running loose in society.

Children can lie with less guilt than an adult because they have less of an understanding of the consequences of their lies. Furthermore, children are more emotionally similar to animals than are adult humans. For example, children will grab at food on the kitchen counter or dinner table just like pet dogs. Children show no guilt for grabbing at food. Like an animal, when they see something they want, their emotions tell them to grab it.

As children grow up, they become more honest and less like an animal. Most children end up becoming "average" adults, and half of the adult population ends up more like an animal than the other half.

For example, the actress Natalie Portman was accused of pretending to have done the ballet dancing in the movie Black Swan. Hollywood frequently pays stuntmen to do dangerous and difficult stunts, but they acknowledge the fact that other people are doing the stunts. However, Natalie Portman and the people who were promoting the movie pretended that she did those ballet scenes.

After they were exposed as liars, none of them showed signs of guilt or embarrassment. Rather, they defended themselves, as if they had done nothing wrong. How is that behavior any different from what we refer to as "plagiarism"? How is it any different from a dog that grabs meat from the dinner table?

Natalie Portman and the others should have been considered as behaving in a crude, animal-like, and unacceptable manner, but not many people showed a concern. Scientists show a concern over plagiarism, but not many other people care about it. It is so common for people to lie, exaggerate, and deceive that Natalie Portman did not stand out in the crowd. Millions of people are regularly exaggerating about themselves on their resume, hiding their criminal history, and taking credit for the achievements of their coworkers or employees.

When animals compete for for food, social status, or a mate, they fight, intimidate, growl, and kick each other. They do not think about what is best for society. They are in competition for survival and reproduction, and they don't care about what is best for anybody else. They are trying to satisfy their own cravings, and they will do whatever it takes to satisfy those cravings.

Humans do not seem to be as selfish as animals, and we also have enough intelligence to exert some control over our emotions, but even the best-behaved humans are willing to use deception. This is especially true when we are looking for a spouse or a job because we have very strong cravings for a spouse and for our survival. An animal's only purpose in life is to live long enough to reproduce.

Unlike animals, humans have the intelligence to justify their crimes and deception. For example, if a person feels guilty for deceiving people as he looks for a job or a spouse, he might make himself feel better by telling himself that he is not hurting anybody with his deception. Rather, the business that hires him will benefit because he will be a wonderful employee, and the person he marries will benefit because he will be a wonderful partner. If a lie doesn't hurt anybody, what is wrong with it? And if people benefit from the lie, then it is acceptable, isn't it?

To complicate this issue, it is fairly easy for us to find lots of situations where we can justify lying, especially when dealing with children and stupid adults. For example, when a child wants a toy or a pet dog, his parents might lie to him by claiming that they cannot afford it, or that they will try to get it sometime in the future.

Honesty is the ideal policy, but in order for everybody to be honest all the time, everybody has to be capable of handling the truth in a calm and sensible manner. The problem with the truth is that it is often disappointing. A casual observation of the people around you should make it obvious that there are a lot of people who have trouble handling disappointments. For example, there are men who react with pouting, anger, or revenge when a woman shows no interest in him, or when they are turned down for a promotion or fired from their job.

Some people even have trouble losing a casual recreational game with their friends. In a previous document, I mentioned that Donald Trump is accused of cheating during friendly games of golf. Can Donald Trump handle the truth? Or is he likely to react with anger, revenge, or pouting? How well does he handle disappointments, failures, and critical reviews?

We often lie simply to deceive ourselves

A characteristic of humans that animals don't have the intelligence for is that we often create false images of ourselves simply to titillate ourselves, as opposed to creating images to fool other people. This is most noticeable with people who are suffering from low self-esteem, or who are abnormally arrogant. For example, I know a man who is suffering from low self-esteem because his life has not been the way he wanted it to be. He had trouble getting and holding the jobs that he wanted, and he has not found a spouse. He would exaggerate his education and jobs, and he claimed to be friends with lots of people.

However, I never saw any evidence that he was lying about himself in order to fool people or manipulate them. Actually, it was easy to figure out that he was lying about himself because he didn't seem to show any concern for whether his lies made sense. His remarks about himself reminded me of daydreams in which we spend a few moments fantasizing about being wealthy, and then we might switch to fantasizing about meeting somebody famous, and then we might switch to fantasizing about being a great athlete, and then we might switch to fantasizing about being a success in school. In our daydreams, nothing has to make sense, and we don't care if one daydream conflicts with another.

When this man would talk about his life, it seemed as if he was simply describing some of the daydreams that were passing through his mind. He didn't seem to be trying to hurt anybody or deceive anybody. He seemed to be trying to make himself feel better by telling himself that he was educated, had lots of important friends, and had had a few important jobs during his past. He also told me that he had a girlfriend, but when I asked him where she was, he hesitated for a while and made some vague remark about how she was busy with her life and they hadn't seen each other for a while. It reminded me of a lonely man who had a girlfriend only in his daydreams. I suppose he had met a woman that he was attracted to, and perhaps talked to her for a while, and ever since then he has been fantasizing that she is his girlfriend.

If a man were mentally defective in such a manner that he became convinced that his daydreams were true, he would be an extreme version of the man I just described. He would make remarks that did not make much sense, or even flow together smoothly, like this,

"When I was in college, I was one of the best students, and I got lots of PhD's and awards. I had an important job at a big company, and I was in charge of a big group, and we did lots of important things. I have a girlfriend, also, she is very pretty and talented. I am also a talented athlete. I've won several Olympic gold medals. And in my previous life, I was a peasant in England, and I still have some memories of my life during the Middle Ages. And Jesus loves me."

Men have a very strong craving to be important, and I think that if we could read people's minds, we would find that most men are titillating themselves with exaggerations of themselves, such as telling themselves how smart they are, or how educated they are, or how talented they are, or how honest they are, or how responsible they are, or how they are special because they have such wonderful qualities as integrity, responsibility, or modesty.

Most of the time the men keep their boastful thoughts inside their mind, but many men feel the need to tell us about their wonderful qualities. We need to be cautious of the men who boast about themselves because many of them do this in order to deceive us. Salesmen are perhaps the best example. They will often tell us about their honesty and how they treat people fairly. They do this to fool us into trusting them.

A person might also claim to be opposed to drug use and pedophilia simply because he's involved with those activities and is trying to convince us that he is not.

It is difficult to determine whether a person is telling the truth because many people say something that is obviously false, but they truly believe they are telling the truth. Perhaps the best example are the religious fanatics who believe that a god is talking to them, and that they are talking to that god. They are not lying; rather, their mind simply does not do a very good job of thinking.

Some of the people who claim that they have spoken to a god may be atheists who are trying to manipulate religious people into trusting them and giving them money or other favors, but some of those people are simply mentally incompetent.

There are also people who claim to be clairvoyant, or that witches really do exist, or that they can communicate with their dead mother, or that they know reincarnation is real because they can remember parts of their previous life. We cannot always be sure if the people who make those idiotic remarks are liars who are trying to manipulate us, or if they are simply unable to think properly, but regardless of what their problem is, they are potential dangers to society, and we should not allow them to get into influential positions.

We have a tendency to ignore the mentally incompetent people and assume they are as harmless as a dog or cat, but they are potential dangers. Just look through history and notice how many religious fanatics and idiots have caused trouble for society.

Is Tarantino a leader, or a deceiver?

In October 2015, the Hollywood movie producer Quentin Tarantino participated in a protest about police brutality, and he boasted to the crowd of people that he is intolerant of murder, including the murders committed by policemen:
“When I see murder, I cannot stand by . . . I have to call a murder a murder, and I have to call the murderers the murderers.”

Protests are common in America, especially in front of the White House, but Tarantino ignores almost all of them. He chose to get involved with the Rise Up October group. On their website, in the About section, they write:
“One after another, precious Black and Brown lives are stolen by police. The powers-that-be continue to unleash their cops to kill and brutalize and the courts continue to exonerate these killers. No more!”

This group does not encourage people to analyze society's problems, discuss our problems, or suggest possible improvements. Rather, they encourage people to "rise up" against the mysterious and elusive "powers that be" who are unleashing dangerous policemen.

This group of people are encouraging hatred, fights, rebellion, and defiance. Why would Tarantino choose to speak at such a disgusting and angry protest? Does he honestly believe in what the Rise Up group is promoting?

The Rise Up October group shows no concern for the black people who are educated, honest, and responsible. They show a concern only for the worst behaved, most obnoxious, and most disgusting black people. They describe those disgusting black people as "precious".

A lot of black Americans refuse to support the Rise Up October group, so why would Tarantino choose to support them?

Tarantino was never selected by society to be one of our leaders, or to influence our future. He put himself into a leadership position by taking advantage of his fame, wealth, and the fact that he doesn't have to work full-time like the rest of us.

In our world today, we let anybody get into an influential position, and for any reason they please. We do not yet have any standards for our leaders. We do not yet care whether they are truly providing leadership, or whether they are members of crime networks and are selfishly trying to manipulate us for their personal benefit.

Tarantino did not participate in that rally in order to provide leadership to the people. He had no intelligent analysis of the issue of killings by the police, and he had no intelligent suggestions on how to improve society. All he had for the audience was some boastful remarks about how he is intolerant of murder, and some idiotic accusations about how the police are killing innocent people simply because they had black or brown skin. He was not trying to help the people understand anything. Rather, he was doing what animals regularly do; namely, deceive and manipulate.

The reason I believe that Tarantino was trying to deceive his audience is because if he was truly intolerant of murders, and truly unable to ignore murders, and truly felt a need to expose murderers, then I would expect him to be upset with all murders, not just a few killings by the police. For example, he would be upset with all of the black American citizens who are murdering people, and he would also be upset that the Jews murdered thousands of people in New York City when they demolished the World Trade Center buildings with explosives.

If you select people at random in supermarkets or office buildings, you will find that almost everybody who is above average in intelligence has been exposed to the evidence that black citizens are killing many more people than the police, and that Jews are responsible for the 9/11 attack. Therefore, it is safe to assume that Tarantino is aware of that evidence, also. So, why is he ignoring it?

The majority of people ignore this information because they are like sheep, but Tarantino cannot claim to be a sheep because he joins protest rallies. Sheep do not join protests. Sheep focus on themselves; they spend their lives grazing on the grass and ignoring all of the problems that are going on around them. Tarantino is an active participant in changing the world.

People are killed every day in America, but very few of those deaths are the result of police. Almost all of the murders are committed by American citizens, not by the police. If Tarantino is truly opposed to murder, why would he focus so much attention on the small number of killings by the police? Why is he ignoring the murders committed by other people?

Furthermore, and even more important, virtually everybody whose brain is functioning well enough to hold a job will agree that the police can almost always justify their killings, whereas most of the murders committed by citizens are for reasons that we are appalled with.

There are a lot of reasons that people can die in this world, such as diseases, lightning, automobile accidents, tornadoes, cancer, and being shot by the police. However, of all of the dangers that we face, the least significant to almost everybody is being killed by the police. You and I have a greater chance of being hit by lightning than we do of being killed by a policeman. This is also true for black people. The greatest threat to a black American's life is from automobile accidents and other black people. Furthermore, all people of all races are also more likely to suffer as a result of their own inability to control their food consumption, drug use, spending habits, and alcohol consumption.

Tarantino is ignoring the most serious dangers in our lives and focusing attention on a danger that only a small number of extremely obnoxious and violent people have to worry about. Tarantino is not an idiot, so he cannot claim ignorance or stupidity to justify his participation in that rally. A more sensible explanation for why he is complaining about police brutality is that he is deliberately trying to instigate hatred of the police. I think he is hoping to encourage more black people to fight with the police, thereby increasing the number of killings by the police, which in turn could lead to more riots.

I think Tarantino is trying to disrupt society. I would classify him as an enemy of America, or as a traitor, and I would say that the military and police could justify arresting and removing him from society on the grounds that they are protecting America from a dangerous, deceptive, manipulative criminal.

We should pass judgment on which lies are tolerable

When an "ordinary" person asks you if you like their new hairstyle, and if you lie to them when you tell them that you like it, you could justify your lie by pointing out that you don't think the person has the emotional ability to handle the truth. You could also point out that your lie is not going to have a significant detrimental effect on society.

By comparison, when Tarantino speaks at a demonstration and promotes the deceptive, distorted attitude that the police are deliberately killing black and brown people, he is analogous to a person who is putting dirt into a transmission.

If Tarantino were to provide us with a serious analysis of police actions, then he would be behaving like a scientist, and his behavior would be acceptable. If the police did not like the conclusions of his analysis, they should respond with an explanation for what they disagree with. If Tarantino and the police would behave in that manner, and if other people would also react to problems by analyzing them and discussing them, we would eventually achieve progress in improving our nation.

Unfortunately, Tarantino had no desire to provide any intelligent analysis of any issue. He instead gave a distorted, biased, deceptive view of the police, and the purpose seems to be to manipulate people into hating the police and fighting with them. Instead of arresting Tarantino for inciting hatred, the police reacted by advocating a boycott of his movies. This does nothing to stop Tarantino.

Life is becoming increasingly complex. People thousands of years ago did not have to analyze themselves or other people, but today we need to push ourselves into trying to understand ourselves, and passing judgment on when a person's deception can be ignored, and when a person is disrupting society with his deception.

Honesty is ideal, but can we handle it?

All societies today encourage deception rather than honesty. For example, children are taught that when they are looking for a spouse or job, they need to "present themselves in a good manner", or "promote themselves", or "make themselves look good," or "show their best qualities". These phrases are simply another way of teaching children,
• "Exaggerate your good qualities and ignore your bad qualities."
• "It is acceptable to be deceptive when you are trying to get a job or spouse."
• "Don't be honest about yourself; try to fool people into thinking that you are better than you really are."

Children are not taught to analyze themselves, discover their problems and limitations, and be honest with other people about what they have discovered.

Furthermore, we do not teach children to be honest about their job history, medical history, education, or anything else. Instead, children are taught to keep their "personal" information a secret. We encourage paranoia, secrecy, and deception, not openness and honesty.

The reason human societies have these attitudes is because we are still following our emotions like stupid animals rather than thinking about what would be best for ourselves. Animals have no interest in honesty or openness. Rather, they are interested in intimidating other animals, manipulating other animals, and frightening other animals. Furthermore, most animals are paranoid about being observed, so if they had medical data, or other information, they would hide it from the other animals.

It was acceptable for our prehistoric ancestors to behave like animals, but I think we would create a more pleasant social environment if we switched to promoting honesty. We should favor the people who are the most honest about themselves, and the least paranoid of having people look at their "personal" information. The people who have trouble with honesty should be regarded as inferior to those who are better able to handle it. We should not feel sorry for them or pander to them.

A person who can only boast about himself is no better than an animal. By comparison, if a person can analyze his life so well that he can identify his talents and limitations, admit to his failures, and give us a list of his genetic defects, he is showing truly advanced mental qualities. He is showing us that he can control his emotions so well that he can look critically at himself, and that he can control his paranoia of people looking at his "personal" information. He also shows that he can handle the truth about himself, and he is not worried that other people will know the truth about him.

If we could measure everybody's level of honesty and their ability to handle honesty, we would create bell graphs in which the majority of people are ordinary in these qualities. Although we cannot measure such qualities, we ought to make an attempt to pass judgment on who among us is the most honest, and whose lies are the most disruptive. We should favor the people who are the most honest for influential positions.

Children should not be taught to promote themselves; rather, schools should give them practice in analyzing themselves and learning to accept the truth about themselves. However, we will not be able to promote such an attitude when the people who dominate society are lying more than the ordinary people. We need to restrict the influential positions to the people who are more honest than the ordinary people. Dishonest leaders are going to promote secrecy and privacy, not honesty and openness.

The people who are ashamed of themselves should be told that it is their responsibility to accept what they are. We do not owe them secrecy, and they do not have a right to deceive us about their job history, medical condition, education, or previous relationships. It is not our fault if somebody is ashamed of his behavior. He needs to accept what he is rather than pretend that he is something else.

It might help you to understand the importance of honesty if you consider the issue of transsexual men. They are taking hormones, and sometimes having surgery, to become more like a woman. If humans were as honest as we like to believe we are, and if people could handle the truth as well as we believe we can handle it, then transsexuals would not hide the fact that they are transsexuals. Their sexual problems would be public knowledge, and everybody who worked with or lived near them would know that they were transsexuals.

However, in reality, we find that transsexuals are under pressure to hide the truth about themselves because an enormous number of people - mainly the religious people - cannot handle the concept that humans can become sexually mixed up. The religious fanatics believe that transsexuals are the result of the devil, or that people are choosing to become homosexuals or transsexuals. These religious fanatics are putting pressure on the transsexuals to hide their sexual problems rather than be honest about them.

The end result is that some transsexuals are so afraid to be honest about themselves that they get romantically involved with heterosexual men without admitting that they are transsexuals.

When the men discover that they have been kissing and dating a transsexual, some of them become so angry that they hurt or murder the transsexual. Those men are then arrested for assault or murder of a transsexual. We consider the transsexual to be a victim of a crime, but we could say the transsexual committed a crime, and the heterosexual man was a "victim" who was doing society a favor by killing a disgusting criminal.

A transsexual who deceives a man into a relationship is committing a crime that is much more serious than stealing food from a market. There is an excess of food in America, so nobody is harmed if a hungry person steals some food, but when transsexual deceives a man into a relationship, he is wasting a portion of a man's life.

There have also been people with venereal diseases that kept the information a secret from their sexual partners, thereby spreading the disease to other people. Those people should be considered as disgusting criminals, also.

We should also apply this concept to heterosexual men and women who deceive one another into marriage, or who pretend to be single when they are married. There are also women who lie about taking birth control because they want to get pregnant and pressure the man into marriage. That should be considered a crime, also.

We should pass judgment on which lies are insignificant enough to ignore, and which are interfering with the lives of other people or society. For example, we can tolerate women who lie about their hair color, but when a married man deceives a woman into thinking he is single simply so that he can have sex with her, or when a transsexual deceives a man into thinking he is a natural woman, or when a person lies about his venereal diseases and spreads those diseases to other people, we should consider those type of lies as interfering with the life and happiness of other people.

By eliminating secrecy and putting information about people in a publicly accessible database, all of the lies that people are caught at would accumulate in the database. We would be able to look though the database to see how people have treated other people in the past, and that would help us to determine who we want as friends, spouses, coworkers, neighbors, and leaders.

When somebody steals a material item from you, you can replace it, but there are certain types of lies that have a significant effect on your life, such as when you are deceived into forming a relationship. That type of lie causes you to waste a portion of your life with a liar. You can replace a material item, but you cannot replace a portion of your life, especially not your youth.

Unfortunately, in our societies today, deception is so common and so well tolerated that we do not consider a person to be a "criminal" when they deceive another person. Transsexuals are not arrested when they pretend to be natural women; heterosexual men and women have almost total freedom in regards to deceiving one another; and government officials and political candidates are rarely fired, reprimanded, or arrested for lying.

We also do not arrest people for lying when they claim on their lease that they do not smoke or have pets, and we do not arrest people who lie on their resume. A person might be fired from his job or evicted from his apartment when he is caught lying, but we don't record his lies in a publicly accessible database so that other people can see what type of lies he has told, and we don't prohibit those people from leadership positions. There are no significant repercussions for lying or deceiving.

When a scientist makes a claim about something, the other scientists expect him to back it up with evidence. If he cannot provide sensible evidence, he will ruin his reputation. By comparison, all of us, including scientists, are free to make any claims about ourselves that we please without providing any supporting evidence, and if we are caught lying, there are almost no consequences.

If we kept information about everybody in a publicly accessible database, and if we used that database to determine if a person's claims about himself were accurate, I think we would discover that almost everybody is a hypocrite. For example, many people boast about how they are too proud to take handouts, but an analysis of their life will show us that some of them they have whined about the taxes on inheritances, or they begged the government for special privileges for their business, or chose a wealthy spouse simply because they wanted access to money that they did not earn.

If we were to create some new cities, and if we were to restrict them to the people who are above-average in honesty, I think we would see a noticeable improvement in the social environment of that city. I think the people would find it easier to form stable friendships and marriages, and it would be easier for them to get jobs.

It might help you to understand the value of honesty if you imagine two extreme societies. At one extreme is a society in which lying is so prevalent that you have no idea if the woman you are talking to is a woman or a man taking hormones, and you have no idea if any of the information on a resume is truthful. In this society, everybody is so secretive and paranoid that marital records are considered to be private, personal information, so you don't even know for sure who is married and who is single.

At the other extreme would be a society in which people are so honest that you don't have to verify anything a person tells you. And these people are so open that you can learn anything about their life, as if you were one of their siblings.

Spend some time considering how different life would be in those two societies in regards to finding friends, joining people in social affairs, trusting people with your children, and getting jobs.

Animals do not benefit from honesty; they benefit by being good at fighting, intimidating, manipulating, grabbing, biting, kicking, and scratching. In the world today, people are still behaving like animals. They are fighting, intimidating, and deceiving one another in order to get what they want. In this modern world we will achieve greater benefits when we can work together, trust one another, and do what is best for the group.


Can you accept what you are?

A lot of people are satisfied with their mind and body, but if there was an all-knowing, loving god in control of the world, and if he provided warranties for humans, everybody would be going to the customer service department and asking to have some problems fixed. I don't think anybody would toss their warranty in the trash and remain exactly as he is. Instead, all of us would create an extensive list of the problems that we want fixed, such as the crooked or stained teeth, a digestive system that has trouble with certain foods or excessive farting, skin blemishes, bad eyesight, and bad breath.

However, in order for a person to ask for warranty repairs, a person has to be capable of admitting that he has a defect. Is everybody capable of doing this? Or are some people so arrogant or so neurotic that they would have trouble admitting to having defects? Would those people be afraid to get in line at the service department because they would worry that people will hear which type of problems they want fixed? Would they wait until everybody else had fixed their problems, and then go into the service department when it was empty so that nobody could hear what they were asking to have fixed?

Some of us would be rushing to get into that service department as soon as possible, but judging by the way millions of people are hiding their bipolar problems, migraine headaches, and other problems, I suspect that there would be a lot of people who would wait until the service department was empty.

Furthermore, I suspect that a lot of people would describe the problems they want fixed in a ridiculous manner because they don't want to face the possibility that they have a defective mind and/or body. For example, many people who are alcoholic, obese, or anorexic are blaming their problem on something besides themselves, such as diseases or trauma. How many of those people would be able to tell the warranty department something as honest as,
 "I have a problem controlling my consumption of [food/alcohol], and I want this problem fixed.".
I think a lot of those people would say something idiotic, such as:
"I've been [overweight/alcoholic] ever since [my mother died / I was molested / my spouse divorced me / my child died], and I need help getting over the trauma."

Or they may claim:
"I picked up the disease of [alcoholism/bulimia] as a child, and I need help getting over this disease."

In October 2015, the Canadian voters elected Justin Trudeau. His wife, Sophie, claims to have been cured of a bulimia disease that she picked up during her youth. “There is a cure. I am the proof of that,” she told a journalist. She is now involved with the Looking Glass Foundation, a charity that tries to cure adolescents who have eating disorders. If she had been able to go to a warranty department while she was bulimic, she would have probably asked to be cured of the bulimia disease.


You are what your DNA makes you

In the article I mentioned about Sophie Trudeau, there is the remark:
Genetics have been definitively found to cause eating disorders in some individuals, but Gregoire-Trudeau and many experts believe that environmental causes like the media and the family can trigger the genes.

The people who do not like genetics are frequently making remarks like that, and although they believe that they are providing us with an intelligent analysis of the issue, I would respond that those type of remarks are evidence that those people have a flawed intellectual ability. If society were to pass judgment on people's thinking ability, these people would be classified as too mentally incompetent for positions of influence.

The reason I say that remark is nonsensical is because it could be described as contradicting itself. The remark is claiming that genetics can explain the eating disorder of some individuals, but the environment is affecting other individuals. However, look at how the environment affects those other individuals:
"...environmental causes like the media and the family can trigger the genes."

That remark is supposed to convince us that the environment can cause eating disorders, but it says that the environment is causing the eating disorders by triggering genes. What if a person does not have those particular genes? In such a case, the environment would not be able to trigger those genes, and the person would not develop any eating disorders.

That statement could be rewritten like this,
"Environmental factors can result in eating disorders if a person has particular genes that can be triggered by certain environmental factors. If a person does not have those genetic characteristics, then those environmental factors will have no effect on his eating habits. Therefore, whether a person develops eating disorders depends entirely upon his genetics."


The author of the remark does not have the intellectual ability to realize that his remark is failing to reach the conclusion that he intended. He is trying to support the theory that the environment is responsible for some people's eating disorders, but his remark is actually showing that genetics is entirely responsible for everybody's eating disorders. The author is making a remark similar to,

"Obesity is caused by the environment, not genetics. Obesity has been rising during the past century because our technology is providing us with large amounts of food and candy. When the obese people are put into a hospital and given a restricted diet, they begin to lose weight immediately. By changing their environment, they lose weight, thereby proving that their obesity is due to the environment, not their genetics."

Schools should give students assignments to analyze those type of remarks. That would help us determine which students enjoy these type of analyses, and which of them are good at it. If we were to restrict voting to the people who show an ability to provide intelligent analyses of these type of remarks, then they would do a much better job of analyzing candidates for leadership than the voters are doing right now.

It is important for a modern society to be able to analyze candidates for influential positions, and we need to pass judgment on who is providing us with intelligent guidance, and who needs to be replaced.

Most people are capable of putting words together in a grammatically correct manner, but there are not many people who can put words together in a manner that actually conveys some truly intelligent thoughts, unless, of course, they are merely repeating somebody else's intelligent thoughts.

The people who promote the attitude that eating disorders are the result of the environment are promoting a theory that is as stupid as voodoo. Those people should not be allowed to influence society or children.

Everything about a living creature is determined by genetics. The environment will affect us only if our DNA allows it to affect us. Your behavior is determined by your DNA, not by your childhood traumas or the death of your spouse. If a child becomes obese or alcoholic after his mother dies, it is not because humans become obese or alcoholic from childhood traumas. It is because that particular child has a brain that has been designed in such a terrible manner that it reacts to unpleasant events in inappropriate manners, such as eating excessively or getting drunk. Other children, with higher-quality brains, react to the same environmental event in a more sensible manner.

Your DNA creates a brain with certain characteristics. How you behave depends upon those genetic characteristics. For example, those of you who are reading my articles during your leisure time, as opposed to reading them because it is part of your job, have chosen to spend some of your leisure time reading them, but why did you choose to read my documents rather than choose to watch television, play with a dog, gamble, or get drunk? There is something different genetically about your brain compared to the people who refuse to read these documents and prefer to do something else.

The thoughts and behavior of a person are an indication of how his brain has been designed. People who are dishonest, obese, alcoholic, or suffering from some other problem want to believe that they have an excellent mind, and that their problems are due to their parents, society, or some mysterious disease or event, but their mind is not excellent. There is something wrong with the way it has been designed.

Sophie Trudeau promotes the attitude that she is a normal, healthy woman who somehow picked up the mysterious bulimia disease during her youth. We could certainly define the word "disease" in such a manner that her remark would make sense, but I think we should use the word "disease" to refer to the attack by microscopic bacteria, viruses, and fungus. With that definition, a "disease" can be treated by antibiotics and other medical treatments.

Ideally, we would have an authority of language to provide sensible definitions for our words. I don't think the word "disease" should be used to describe alcoholism, eating disorders, allergies, or anything else that is the result of genetic qualities.

Teaching children that there is such a thing as a bulimia disease is as idiotic as teaching them that there is such a thing as voodoo, witchcraft, and ghosts. Children would develop a more realistic attitude towards life if they were taught that they are jumbles of genetic traits, and that it is their duty as a member of society to analyze themselves, discover their strengths and limitations, figure out how to deal with their problems so that they don't bother other people, and find a way to contribute something of value to society. Children should be taught that they are responsible for their behavior, and that if they misbehave, it is because their mind made the decision to do so.

People who blame their bad behavior on other people, mysterious diseases, or childhood events should be regarded as lower quality people, and we should keep them out of influential positions. Our leaders should be promoting sensible attitudes. This applies to everybody in an influential position, not just government officials. It applies to teachers, journalists, scientists, and the leaders of all types of organizations.

To complicate the issue, it is entirely possible that there are some diseases that can cause people to behave badly. There is a fungus, for example, that can infect the brain of an ant and alter its behavior. It is possible that there is a fungus or virus that can infect human brains and cause people to become bulimic, alcoholic, or arrogant, but until we have some evidence, we should not let people claim that their problems are due to a disease.

To further complicate the issue, our brain and body can become damaged by the environment, such as from radiation, chemicals, and hitting our head against a hard object. For example, radioactive iodine has caused some people's thyroid glands to fail, and unless they take thyroid hormones to counteract the damage, it will adversely affect their physical and mental performance and behavior. There are also some chemicals that can damage the brain and/or body of a fetus, and it is possible that some chemicals are causing homosexuality or abnormally early sexual maturity.

Amazingly, some of the environmental damage can be beneficial in some ways. For example, some people, such as Jason Padgett, developed better math abilities, artistic abilities, or musical abilities after suffering brain damage from fights, lightning, or accidents.

However, radiation, lightning, and chemicals are not an environmental "influence" over the human mind. They are analogous to automobile accidents. It would be best to describe them as environmental damage, or environmental destruction. Because they destroy a portion of our brain, we cannot fix that type of destruction with therapy. Perhaps the future generations will be able to replace damaged organs, but as of today, environmental destruction is permanent.

If we were to raise standards for people in leadership position, then Sophie Trudeau would be classified as medically incompetent and scientifically ignorant. She should not be allowed to influence society. Furthermore, we should not allow journalists, schoolteachers, school books, government officials, or businessmen to promote idiotic ideas.

Sophie Trudeau is no longer bulimic, and she claims that it is because therapy cured her of the disease, but she cured herself. The therapy may have helped her figure out and practice how to control her eating habits, but she is responsible for stopping the bulimia. The therapy did not cure her of any disease.

What would you think if Oxford University changed its name to Oxford Hospital, and instead of accepting "students", they accepted "patients" who are suffering from the "ignorance disease" and wanted to be cured of it?

A school does not cure people of an "ignorance disease". If a child learns something from school, it is because he has the genetic ability to learn, and the genetic desire to learn. An educational program can only assist you with what you want to do, and what you are capable of doing. If a student does not have the genetic ability to learn, or if he does not have the genetic desire to learn, he will not learn anything.

This concept applies to all of our behavioral problems. If a person has trouble controlling his consumption of food or alcohol, or if he has trouble controlling his craving for gambling, sex, video games, or money, he is not suffering from a "disease", and no type of therapy can cure him of his behavioral problem. The people who get control of their food or alcohol consumption after participating in an educational program are not being cured of a disease. They are simply learning how to control themselves.

The people who have trouble controlling their behavior should not be encouraged to believe that they are suffering from some type of disease, and that they can be cured with therapy. It is more sensible to teach children that they are responsible for everything they do, and if they are overweight or bulimic, it is because they have trouble controlling their eating habits, and it is their responsibility to learn how to control themselves. They are responsible for their weight, not us.

The difference between athletes is minuscule

It might seem as if I am putting too much emphasis on the issue of how we describe bulimia, but it might make more sense if you consider how this applies to athletes. If we compare an Olympic athlete to an ordinary person, we find a tremendous difference in physical abilities, but if we could measure each person's athletic ability, and then put everybody in a line according to their ability, we would find that there is a minuscule difference between any person in that line and the person next to him.

The same applies to mental qualities. If we were to compare an intelligent person to a dumb person, we would find a tremendous difference, but if we could truly measure each person's intelligence, and then put everybody in a line according to their intelligence, we would find that there is imperceptible difference between one person and the next.

How do we determine which of our leaders are doing a good job, and which need to be replaced? The difference between one intelligent person and the next is minuscule. We have to pay attention to what might seem to be trivial issues, such as which of them is referring to alcoholism as a disease. By noticing the subtle differences in their remarks and behavior, we can pass judgment on which of them is giving us the most useful analyses of life and the most sensible guidance.

The truth is more helpful than lies

All of us have mental and physical defects, but we prefer to lie to ourselves and believe that we are perfect, and that all of our problems are due to environmental events or other people. We will help ourselves much more by being honest and admitting that our problems are due to genetic defects. When we understand the true cause of our problems, we will have a greater chance of figuring out how to deal with those problems.

For example, an obese person who convinces himself that he is obese because his mother died at a young age is going to have trouble getting control of his weight because he will be expecting psychologists to cure him of his trauma. If he had a more accurate understanding of why he is obese, he would have a greater chance of figuring out how to deal with the problem.

Unfortunately, we don't yet know enough about the human mind or body to adequately explain why people are obese. All we can determine is that they are having trouble controlling their consumption of food. Is it because they have a stronger hunger emotion than the rest of us? Is it because they have less self control over those hunger emotions? Is it because they have a tendency to hide from the problems in their life and seek pleasure rather than face the problems and deal with them?

We don't know why people become obese, but we can easily determine that every animal has DNA that is designed to make the animal a certain size and shape. Somehow the cells within a cat's body know that the muscles on the legs are to be a certain size and shape, and that each bone and tendon must be a certain size and shape. Somehow the cells within an elephant's body know that they must produce larger muscles and bones than those of a cat, and with a slightly different shape, also.

The human body was designed to produce muscles, tendons, and bones of a certain size. Since we are all genetically unique, each of us has subtle differences in the size of our body, but when you compare humans to animals, it should be obvious that all human bodies are designed to produce muscles, bones, and tendons of a certain size and shape.

The men who are involved with bodybuilding are trying to produce muscles that are larger than those our body was designed to produce. They achieve this through extreme levels of exercise. During the past few decades, most of them have also been using drugs and hormones to trick their muscles into growing larger than they are supposed to.

The bodybuilders have to put a lot of time and effort into growing large muscles because the human body was not designed for such large muscles. If the bodybuilders stop their extreme exercise programs and drugs for a long period of time, their body will shrink in size to whatever their particular body was designed to be.

By comparison, animals and humans can accumulate fat without any effort. We don't have to follow any exercise routine, and we don't need to take hormones or drugs to get fat, and we don't have to force ourselves to eat anything in particular. All we have to do is eat a lot of food.

Wild animals will never get fat because they are always suffering from a shortage of food, but domesticated animals and humans can easily become fat, unless they are suffering from a defect that interferes with the production of fat.

It is also important to note that when animals and humans store fat on their body, it is not distributed in a sensible manner. Although our body was designed keep fat away from our fingers, toes, reproductive organs, and face, our DNA does not show much concern for where the fat is stored, or what shape the fat is taking. Some people store a lot of fat around their stomach, and others end up with enormous amounts on their butt, and others have large amounts on their legs.

Our muscles must be a certain size and shape in order to fit together and work properly, but fat doesn't work with anything, so it doesn't have to be any particular size or shape, or in any particular location. The ease at which animal and human bodies will store fat, and the fact that our bodies don't show any concern for how much fat we are storing, or the shape of the fat storage, is evidence that animals never evolved a genetic limitation on the storage of fat, or on the shape or location of the fat. Every animal's body has the genetic ability to maintain hundreds of muscles and bones at a certain size, but we have no genetic ability to keep our storage of fat to a reasonable level.

If we want our muscles to become larger than they were designed to be, we must fight with our DNA, but nobody has to struggle to gain excessive amounts of fat. Our DNA does not care how fat we are.

It should be obvious as to why animals and humans are designed with these particular characteristics. An animal's life depends upon its muscles and tendons, and each of them needs to be a certain size and shape so that they fit together and work together. The animals that are inferior at maintaining the proper size and shape of muscles, tendons, bones, and cartilage are at a disadvantage in the competitive battle for life. The animals that dominate are those whose DNA can maintain muscles and other components at the proper size and shape.

In regards to fat, the animals that are the best at converting excess food into fat have an advantage over the animals that are not as efficient at converting food to fat. Since animals suffer from an eternal shortage of food, there is no advantage to an animal who has an ability to limit the amount of fat on its body. As a result, animals never developed any limits to their storage of fat.

The people who promote the attitude that obesity and bulimia are due to diseases, childhood traumas, or the death of a spouse are promoting an attitude as idiotic as voodoo. Our DNA determines what our brain and body is capable of. Each of us is a different size, weight, hair color, etc., because we have different genetic characteristics. Some people's bodies are more efficient at digesting food and converting food into fat, but nobody is fat simply because their body excels at converting food into fat. They are fat because they are eating more than their body needs to survive.

Sophie Trudeau's attitude that eating disorders can be cured with therapy is inaccurate, and should not be promoted. A more sensible attitude is that some people with eating disorders might benefit from educational programs that help them learn to get control of their eating and exercise habits.

Such a subtle difference in attitude may seem meaningless, but it is the difference in attitude between an animal and a human. Trudeau is encouraging an animal's attitude of avoiding responsibility for their behavior and looking for somebody else to blame. Children should be taught that almost every problem they experience is coming from themselves, not from other people or mysterious diseases. Children should be taught to be responsible for their behavior.

These concepts apply to organizations, also, including nations. Organizations should be told that they are responsible for what they do as an organization, and they should not blame their problems on other organizations.

Schools should teach children that every living creature is defective; there are no perfect people. There is not even a person who has only one or two defects. Everybody has lots of physical problems, such as crooked teeth, skin blemishes, and imperfect joints.

If we could analyze brains, we would find that everybody has several mental disorders, also. It is impossible for a person to be perfect because that would require that his parents, grandparents, etc., be genetically perfect, and that there never be any mistakes in the way DNA mixes.

School should be giving children practice in analyzing their mind and body and trying to identify their defects, limitations, and talents. Schools should teach children that they might be able to compensate for some defects, but we do not have the technology to cure anybody of his genetic problems because that would require replacing all of the DNA in his body.

Because humans have a certain ability to override our emotions, it is possible for us to compensate for many of our genetic disorders. However, we cannot be cured of genetic defects. We remain the same defective people, and when we have children, our children will inherit some combination of the defects that we are carrying.

For example, I am suffering from some type of thyroid problem, and thyroid medication is helping me tremendously, but it is merely compensating for the disorder; it doesn't cure me of my disorder. If my thyroid problem is genetic, then if I were to have children, my children would have a tendency to inherit this same disorder, in addition to whatever other defects I am carrying.

If my thyroid problem is due to something environmental, such as radioactive iodine, then my children would not inherit such a problem, but do we have the technology to figure out which of our defects are genetic and which have been caused by radiation or chemicals?

If people could get over their paranoia of other people knowing the truth about them, then everybody would be willing to have their medical information in a publicly accessible database, and that would provide us with a much better understanding of what type of problems the human race is suffering from, and which of these problems are genetic, and which are the result of environmental damage, and which areas of the world are suffering from the most environmental damage or genetic problems.

That type of database would help us figure out how to make changes to our economic system and environment to reduce the environmental damage. However, as long as we continue to behave like paranoid monkeys, we are not going to learn much about ourselves, or how the environment is affecting us.

People like Sophie Trudeau might be honest, friendly, and pleasant to eat dinner with, but they are not promoting beneficial attitudes, so they should be prohibited from positions of influence. Actually, most people should be classified as unfit for leadership and voting, and they should be told to keep their idiotic opinions to themselves.

It didn't make much of a difference what a prehistoric human did or thought because no individual person in that era had much of an effect on anybody else. However, as I explained in other documents, people in this modern world have tremendous influence over other people, including people in other nations, and in the future generations. People can no longer be allowed to do whatever they please.

We cannot ignore incompetent leaders, idiotic philosophies, detrimental behavior, violence, envy, temper tantrums, dangerous pranks, crime networks, or incompetence. We must think of the human world as a garden, and we need to pass judgment on who among us is a flower in that garden, and who is a weed or a parasite.

Have you noticed the beauty of the world?

As I described in a previous document, our cities are essentially zoo exhibits for humans, and I think we have created cities that are so inappropriate for human life that we are making ourselves miserable, and many people are reacting to the misery by dreaming of moving to Mars, or becoming wealthy, or becoming famous.

The people who believe they will be happier on Mars are fools. Life on Mars would be worse than living in Antarctica. There would be no sunsets, forests, creeks, gardens, birds, butterflies, or flowers. There would be no food markets, fruit trees, or restaurants. Nobody would be able to take a bicycle ride, or go swimming in a lake with their children. The sun would be cold and dim, and the meteors and radiation would be deadly. There would be nothing to see in the dim sunlight except dust and rocks, and nothing to do except maintain the metal container that keeps them alive and grows algae for them to eat.

Likewise, the people who believe they can improve their lives by acquiring more material items are also fools. Human happiness doesn't depend upon objects.

Most people want to live in the suburbs, not the cities, and I think we should interpret that as evidence that our cities are inappropriate for us. I don't think we were designed to live in a haphazard collection of ugly buildings scattered around concrete and asphalt, and subjected to constant noise and dust from automobiles, trucks, and trains. I think we were designed to live among trees, grass, and creeks. I also think we want to live in close contact with our friends, not scattered over large distances.

I think the primary problem with the social environment today is that we don't have the friendliness or intimacy that our primitive ancestors had. I don't think we were designed to live with people we don't like, don't trust, and cannot speak to because they speak a different language.

However, we cannot create a friendly environment unless we can provide ourselves with a law enforcement agency or military that can deal with crime, immigration, and refugees, and we must also stop using people as cheap sources of labor.

We can also make the social environment more friendly by changing our economic system from a competition for money to a competition to improve society.

I think life in a City of Castles, as I described in other documents, would provide us with a more relaxed, more pleasant life, even though that type of city would require that we share the unskilled labor tasks, such as gardening, cleaning office buildings, and harvesting fruit on the farms. A lot of people are frightened of "work", but we don't suffer when we have to work. Actually, we enjoy working if we can share the work with our friends.

Furthermore, in a city in which people are encouraged to create social and recreational activities, we will be able to meet more people and experience more of the world and its beauty.

The pomegranates are ripening right now. I rarely eat pomegranates, but I think they are a fascinating fruit. The Internet has lots of videos from people who boast that they have the secret to removing the seeds without destroying them, but the only technique that works well is slicing them and pounding the pieces. Some videos show people pounding them with ordinary spoons, but you don't need as much force if you use something more massive.

An interesting aspect of pomegranates is the seed. If you cut the seed in half, you will find that it is unique. Most seeds are solid on the inside, but a pomegranate seed looks like two leaves that are winding around one another. I cut a seed in half, let it dry a bit to make it a bit easier to see, and then took a photo of it (below).

Incidentally, I made a remark in a previous file about how I was amazed at the depth of focus in some people's photos of ants and other small things, and I have since discovered that this is the result of "focus stacking".

If we were living in a City of Castles, you would not have to sit at home by yourself and search the Internet to understand what focus stacking is. There would certainly be events once in a while in which the people who do focus stacking put on demonstrations and give people the opportunity to try it themselves. In that city you don't have to purchase anything, so after you learn how to do it, you could borrow the equipment and software and give it a try.

The issue I want to bring to your attention as I end this document is that we are living in a beautiful world, but how many people truly enjoy life and other people? How many people are relaxed enough to notice how fascinating the world is? And how many are too busy getting into arguments, trying to find friends, or struggling for money?

We can start experimenting with ways to improve our lives as soon as we find enough people who are willing to do this. So find that courage inside yourself, and find some other people, and let's get going before we die of old age!