I posted this article in January 2010 about some of the people who have been contacting me. On 24 June 2013 I received a letter from a lawyer who informed me that one of those people, Leon Catchatoorian, is upset with some of the remarks that I had written about him. The lawyer told me that a few of those remarks could be considered as "libel", and that I should remove them.

I could understand why Leon would complain about those particular remarks, and so I edited a few paragraphs and removed those particular comments. I posted the revised version on 26 June, and then I sent an email to the lawyer to inform him that I had removed the statements.

Later that day I received a response from the lawyer that he was not satisfied. He told me that I am responsible for providing proof of my remark that Leon subscribed to a pornography site, but rather than ask for such proof, he told me that he wants me to remove the statement, and remove all references to Leon's name from my website. Here is his message:

In the lawyer's first paragraph, he says the burden is on me to prove my accusation that Leon subscribed to a pornographic website. First of all, why is it my responsibility? Even the Wikipedia, in the section how to prove libel, points out that it is Leon's responsibility to prove libel, not mine.

Second, it is ridiculous for a legal system to expect me to prove how another person has been spending his money. All I have are my memories. I recall a phone call with Leon in which he was telling me about a pornography website he had just subscribed to. The website was in Florida, and he was excited that they offered him a subscription at a reduced monthly fee. I can't remember the name of the website, but I remember looking at it while he was telling me about it.

Unfortunately, I did not record the phone call, and I cannot remember any of its details. As with many old memories, I mainly remember "emotional feelings", and visual images, not details. I remember the feeling of irritation as he pressured me into looking at the site and joining it, and I remember wondering why he would spend his money on pornography when he did not have a full-time job or very much money. At the time, he had just lost his job as an apartment manager, and he was sharing an apartment with another man because he could not afford his own apartment.

Leon's lawyer might respond that my memories are not proof of anything, but I'm not trying to prove anything. The purpose of my document is to describe my experiences with the people who tried to manipulate my opinions, not to prove beyond a "reasonable doubt" that Leon subscribed to a pornography site. And the purpose of describing those experiences is not to hurt Leon but to help you understand what I have been going through so that you can learn from my experiences in case mysterious people are contacting you and treating you in a similar manner.

The dispute between me and Leon is an example of why we need to stop people from having secrecy. How can we prove what other people are doing if they are allowed to keep their credit card statements, phone calls, and other activities a secret? If our legal system has the right to demand that I must prove that Leon subscribed to a pornography site, then I should have the right to demand access to Leon's credit card statements and bank statements.

If, as some people claim, the NSA has been saving phone calls, then the NSA can resolve a lot of disputes by giving us access to phone calls.

Crime is rampant all over the world, and people are frequently making accusations against one another. One method of reducing crime and resolving disputes it is to allow the government to conduct total surveillance of the human population. They would accumulate so much information that it would be overwhelming, but nobody would have to browse through it. Rather, when a dispute occurs, we would be able to search for the information that is specific to the dispute.

How can my website interfere with somebody's life?

Leon is claiming that he is suffering as a result of my website, and his lawyer wants me to prove my remarks are accurate. I think disputes over libel should be resolved in the opposite manner. Specifically, everybody who whines about libel should have to show evidence that their life has been adversely affected by the statements made by another person, and they must also show evidence that those statements are false, and they must also show evidence that people knew that those statements were false when they made them. I can understand why Leon would be upset with my website, but exactly how is my website interfering with his life?

I also think that cases of libel should take into account the ability of the person to defend himself. For example, when a journalist discusses his opinions about an "ordinary" person, or somebody who is dead, he is attacking a person who cannot properly defend himself, and so the journalist has an unfair advantage. I would say that journalists must meet higher standards when they are making comments about people who don't have equal access to the media, or who are dead. If a journalist makes comments about a person who is alive, then he has a responsibility to give that person a chance to defend himself.

If I was a television talkshow host, or the President of America, and if I were to broadcast my opinions about Leon to the world without giving him a chance to respond, then people would be justified in complaining that I am unfair to Leon. However, all I have is an ordinary website. My website doesn't get any publicity. If Leon wants to defend himself, he can create a website and dispute whatever he pleases. He has an equal opportunity to defend himself. I would not say that I have any advantage over him.

If my website was getting publicity by Henry Kissinger, Matt Drudge, Alex Jones, the Associated Press, the Red Cross, Steven Spielberg, and thousands of other people and organizations, then Leon could complain that I have a much greater advantage than he does. However, almost nobody has a link to my website, and I don't get any publicity by the news media, the alternative media, by businesses, or anybody else.

The Wikipedia, as of July 2013, admits to twice deleting entries that people have created about me, and they justify it by saying that I am of no importance. A screen image of this page is below:

Unlike a paper encyclopedia, which requires significant amounts of resources and labor to produce and distribute, the Wikipedia is electronic. Therefore, maintaining an entry in the Wikipedia requires only a miniscule amount of hard disk space, and allowing people to access the entry requires a miniscule amount of bandwidth. What is the annual cost to Wikipedia for leaving an entry of me in their database? The Wikipedia does not disclose their financial details, but they imply that I am of so little importance that the human race will benefit more by freeing up that miniscule amount of hard disk space for more important entries.

How much bandwidth would an entry for me require? If I am of no importance, nobody will access my site, so it won't be a burden at all. However, the Wikipedia considers me to be so insignificant that it is not worth taking the chance that somebody might access my entry occasionally, thereby increasing their bandwidth expenses by a few billionths of a penny.

Since I am of so little importance that I am not even worthy of an entry in an electronic encyclopedia, then I would say Leon has an equal opportunity to defend himself simply by creating a website and disputing whatever I have written about him. Both of us will have websites of no importance to anybody. We will be equal. Neither of us will be listed in the Wikipedia, or get any publicity from the Associated Press, President Obama, or Steven Spielberg.

I would tell Leon that the "burden of proof" is on him to prove that the website of a person of no importance is causing him to suffer. Exactly how is the website of an insignificant person interfering with what he wants to do with his life? Is my website preventing him from getting a job, purchasing groceries, engaging in leisure activities, driving an automobile, or traveling around the city? If so, how is my website causing these problems for him? I also want him to show evidence that he is unable to properly defend himself by creating his own website and refuting whatever he disagrees with on my website.

Another issue to consider is that I posted the article that Leon is complaining about in January 2010, about 3 1/2 years ago. Why is he complaining about it now? Did my website only recently cause trouble for him? Or has he been suffering the past 3 1/2 years but only recently figured out that the reason was because of my website? Can he show evidence that he suffered? If not, then I would say his lack of suffering is more evidence that my website is not a significant influence on his life.

Do we have to obey a lawyer in secrecy?

The third paragraph of the lawyer's letter is confusing, but he seems to be upset that I mentioned that I edited my document because a lawyer told me to do so. I get the impression that he wants me to modify my site in such a manner that people assume that it was my own idea to do so.

Why would a lawyer care if somebody mentions that he has altered a document because a lawyer advised him to do so? I have heard many people make remarks about how they were advised by a lawyer to do something. Why would Leon's lawyer want me to keep quiet about following his advice? Is he afraid that if I bring attention to this issue, he will be regarded as incompetent or abusing his position?

I did not mention the name of the lawyer, or even the city that he lives in. The letter that he wrote to me gave me the impression that he was either young or just getting started as a lawyer, and when I searched the Internet for his name, all I could find was a few simple remarks that he had been a lawyer for a couple of years. There is virtually nothing about him. Perhaps the reason he is willing to take on this libel case is because he doesn't have enough experience to realize that it is ridiculous for Leon to blame my website for his miserable life.

In my opinion, laws, legal disputes, and legal advice should not be secretive. Problems between people affect everybody in society. The dispute between me and Leon can affect you and the future generations in many ways. Three of them are:

1) It can "set a precedent"
If Leon can censor my website, then other lawyers can say that a "precedent has been set". American lawyers and courts are under no obligation to think of what is best for society. They have a tendency to justify their actions based on previous legal cases. Therefore, if we allow Leon's lawyer to be successful in censoring my website, other lawyers will be able to use that case to justify the censorship of other people's websites. The lawyers will make such stupid remarks as, "In the case of Catchatoorian versus Hufschmid, the courts ruled that Hufschmid was guilty of libel. Therefore...."

A more sensible legal system would operate like a team of engineers. Engineers regularly analyze the work that they and other engineers have done in the past, but they do so to learn from previous work, not to mimic their ancestors or follow a "precedent". An engineer will do what his ancestors did only when he has an intelligent reason for believing that their solution is still the best in that situation.

A more sensible legal system would analyze previous cases in order to learn from them. The goal of a legal system should be to do an increasingly better job at understanding crime and disputes, and to reduce the number and severity of our social problems.

Our products are improving every year as a result of the engineers who study and analyze products. If an engineer could not improve a product, he would be worthless to the company and told to find another job. The same concept should be applied to the people in our legal system. If the lawyers and judges cannot bring improvements to society, then they are worthless to society. If the only thing a lawyer can do is make money, he is serving himself, not society, so he should be forced to try a different type of job.

Every year our legal system should be providing us with a slightly better understanding of crime, the disputes that occur over business contracts, and the fights that occur between citizens, and married couples. Every year the lawyers and judges should be doing a slightly better job of creating business contracts, dealing with divorce problems, and helping us to understand and reduce crime. Our society should get better every year as a result of the work that our legal system is doing.

If a legal system is not bringing improvements to our lives, then it has no purpose. In such a case, we need to redesign the legal system, and/or replace the people who are working in it.

Courts should analyze previous cases only to learn from them, not to mimic them. We must stop mimicking our ancestors and start finding our own path in life.

2) It can encourage other people to demand censorship
Another reason this dispute between me and Leon on can affect you is that it can encourage more censorship. if Leon is successful in censoring my site, Peggy Borger, Daryl Smith, or other people that I have written about, may contact lawyers and complain that they also want information about them censored from my website. In addition, other people may be inspired to complain that they want information about them removed from other people's websites.

3) It can discourage people from exposing crime
If Leon is successful in censoring my website, then it could discourage other people who want to post what they know about criminal activities. And imagine the effect on people if Leon is successful in suing me, or if the courts were to send me to jail.

Millions of people around the world are already terrified of exposing crimes, especially crimes of people in leadership positions. Dozens or hundreds of people knew about the pedophilia at Penn State, for example, but until recently, none of them had the courage to complain about it. Allowing lawyers to censor or have me arrested is going to make this problem worse, not better. The people who have information about crimes cannot "prove" anything because most of them have nothing but memories of what they saw or heard. If our legal system doesn't allow us to talk about what we have heard and seen, then how can we expose crimes? If the burden of proof is on the witness, then the witnesses will be discouraged from publicizing their information.

Don't focus on a narrow sliver of time

A very important concept to understand is that the American legal system allows lawyers to focus attention on a very narrow sliver of a time during an event rather than analyzing all of the factors that may have influenced the event. For example, while Taylor Swift was being presented with an award during 2009, Kanye West rushed up to the stage, grabbed the microphone from her, and announced that Beyonce's video was one of the best.

Imagine if he had been arrested for his angry outburst. The manner in which the American court system works would have resulted in a trial in which the lawyers focus attention on his behavior during those few seconds that he was on stage. The lawyers would point out that video proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he was behaving in a rude, obnoxious, and disruptive manner. They would not waste time trying to determine if he was guilty. Rather, the lawyers would argue over the details of which law he violated, and they would argue over what his punishment should be. Should he be forced to make an apology? Should he be banned from future award ceremonies? Should he have to do community service? Should he go to jail? Should other people discontinue working with him?

The majority of people respond favorably to this idiotic legal system because it appeals to our emotions. When an animal is annoyed by something, its reaction is to attack it. When humans are irritated by criminals or bad behavior, our reaction is also to attack the person. This provides us with emotional satisfaction, but it doesn't do anything to improve life for any of us.

It is conceivable that the human race eventually develops such a thorough understanding of the human mind that they find some truly impressive methods to deal with crime. To understand why I say this, consider how many issues that baffled our ancestors can now be explained, and in some cases, corrected. For example, our ancestors had no way to explain children with Tourette's syndrome or who were left-handed. Humans react with fear, caution, and suspicion to anything that is different. We tend to either avoid things that are unusual, or we try to force them to become familiar. As a result, our ancestors would abandon, kill, or punish children who were unusual.

People today are no longer punishing children who are left-handed or who have Tourette's syndrome because we have since discovered the cause of these problems. However, we do not yet understand the cause of homosexuality, and as a result, people are continuing to react to it with fear, caution, and suspicion. We are continuing to either avoid these people, punish them, or torment them. Future generations may figure out the cause of many sexual disorders, and that will cause everybody to relax and deal with the issue in a more sensible manner.

The same concept applies to "criminals". We have no idea why some people become burglars, murderers, con-artists, or rapists. Our reaction is to avoid these people, punish them, or kill them. Eventually the future generations may know enough about the human mind to understand what is causing these problems, and that will allow the people to calm down and deal with this issue in a more intelligent manner.

Our ancestors punished a lot of left-handed people, but the punishments didn't do any good. However, our ancestors never learned from their mistakes. They tormented and punished the left-handed people over and over, year after year, century after century.

We like to think of ourselves as more educated and better behaved than our ignorant ancestors, but we are still punishing criminals and homosexuals even though there is tremendous amounts of evidence that the punishments have absolutely no value. How many more centuries are we going to follow this failed policy before we accept the fact that punishments cannot correct these type of problems?

We need to study the human mind in order to find a solution to these problems. We cannot solve these problems with jails, beating people with bamboo canes, or making business executives pay fines.

Unfortunately, we will never be able to understand the human mind unless we remove the secrecy that we are providing people. Scientists must be able to study all of the different human minds as they really are. If scientists are forced to study only the data that people want to provide, then they will study the phony, deceptive images that people create for themselves, and they will be oblivious to the information that people are keeping a secret. The scientists will end up with a distorted view of the human mind.

In regards to the Kanye West incident, there is absolutely no value in looking for somebody to blame, hate, or punish. A more appropriate reaction is for us to control our emotional craving for revenge and try to understand why that dispute occurred. By analyzing disputes and crimes from the point of view of why they occur, we have a chance of figuring out how to modify society in order to reduce these type of problems.

To begin with, why did Kanye West decide to run up on stage and make that announcement? The reason is because he became angry when Taylor Swift won the award, but why did he become angry? Animals and people do not become angry at random times of their life. There is always something that triggers the anger, either an outside influence, or an internal problem. Therefore, a legal system that is truly interested in reducing these type of problems would analyze his life and his mind to figure out what triggered his anger. Did his anger result from outside influences, such as people, television shows, or Internet sites, or did it come from something internal, such as a brain tumor, recreational drugs, or poorly regulated blood chemistry?

In order to understand why he became angry, we have to widen our perspective from looking at a few seconds of his life to his entire life, and his interactions with other people. Of course, keep in mind that I don't have the resources or information to truly analyze Kanye West, so everything that I write about this incident is my wild speculations. I am using him merely as an example of how our legal system must stop focusing on slivers of time and start analyzing human social problems with the same attitude that scientists study plants and animals. With that disclaimer in mind, let's analyze Kanye West.

At a certain moment in time on a certain day, Kanye West lost his temper, ran up on stage, and grabbed the microphone away from Taylor Swift. To understand why he did this, we must look at his life at an earlier point in time. If we look a few minutes earlier, we would find that he was sitting calmly in the audience. What caused his mind to switch from calmly sitting in the audience to becoming so irritated that he wanted to run up on stage?

Your first assumption is that he made this decision all by himself, but people today are not isolated individuals who live by themselves. We are surrounded by people, and we are constantly influenced by their behavior, suggestions, and comments. This is especially true for people who work in close contact with other people, as opposed to people who work by themselves in an isolated office cubicle.

Therefore, to truly understand his behavior, we have to go back further in time and look at all of the people he had contact with during the weeks or months prior to the award ceremony, and we have to consider what they were saying and suggesting. How far back in time do we have to go? The farther the better. Understanding human social problems is exactly the same as understanding animals. The more thorough of an analysis we do, the better our conclusions will be. The farther back in time we go, the more we will understand what caused him to develop his particular attitudes, opinions, life, and behavior.

Since I cannot actually watch video of his life, I have no idea who he was in contact with, and what they were saying or suggesting, but based on the people who have been contacting me, such as Leon, Daryl Smith, and Peggy, and based on the attempts by the Jews in the media to start racial fights, and based on my own personal experiences of hearing Jews make bitter comments about black people, my speculation is that if we could watch the video of his life during the weeks prior to the award ceremony, we would have found lots of Jews and their puppets contacting him and making subtle suggestions about how Beyonce deserves that award, and that if she does not get the award, it will be due to "racism".

I also think that total surveillance of the human population would show us that most, possibly all, award ceremonies are frauds. I also suspect that Jews dominate most of the award ceremonies. I think that total surveillance of the human population would show us that many Jews in the entertainment business realized that Beyonce could easily qualify for an award, and so they came up with the idea of giving the award to Taylor Swift, and they hoped that they could convince a black man to make a fuss about it. The purpose of this would be to make black people look stupid, violent, irritable, and angry, and to encourage racial fights. They may have even arranged for Kanye West to sit close enough to the stage for him to easily run up on stage, thereby preventing him from having enough time to think about what he is doing. And they may have put people near him to make remarks about racism in order to keep him in a state of anger.

I also think that a thorough analysis of his life would show us that he was regularly exposed to the idea that black people in America are abused by white racists, and that black people deserve reparations and equal opportunity programs. I think that an analysis of his life would bring us to the conclusion that the people in the media who encourage black people to feel sorry for themselves could be described as partly responsible for causing a lot of black Americans to develop a bad attitude.

Bill Cosby encourages black people to be responsible, honest, and pronounce words properly, but people like Bill Cosby are pushed aside by the Jews. The Jews are intensely envious that black people are more popular than Jews, and better looking, and more talented, and they don't want black people setting a good example for other black people. The Jews promote black people who whine, are violent, have drug problems, and beg for pity. The Jews could be described as partly responsible for encouraging black people to develop bad habits and attitudes. I suspect that if we could watch video of the lives of the black people who promote Ebonics, we would discover that Jews are actually the group that push Ebonics, and that they do so in order to cause trouble, not to help the black people.

If we analyze the Kanye West incident from the point of view of the idiotic American legal system, then we will foolishly focus on a few seconds of his life and argue over whether Kanye West was badly behaved during those few seconds, and if so, what his punishment should be. That type of legal system can give us emotional satisfaction by allowing us to hate or punish people who irritate us, but it does nothing to improve our lives, understand our social problems, or reduce our problems. Punishing Kanye West for his behavior is not going to do anything to help him, or you.

If, instead, we analyze the Kanye West incident from the point of view of Quality Control Engineers who are responsible for reducing our social problems, then we would analyze the incident for the purpose of trying to understand why the dispute occurred, and how we can alter society to reduce such problems. When analyzed from that perspective, I suspect that we would come to the conclusion that a network of criminal Jews are the primary group responsible for the incident, and that one solution to this particular type of problem is to remove those Jews from society.

However, a legal system should not stop there. It should also analyze why Kanye West became one of the victims instead of somebody else. That is not an insignificant issue. An analysis of that incident would certainly show us that the Jews had contacted other black people, and possibly people of other races, but only Kanye West became one of their victims. In order to reduce these type of problems, we need to understand why Kanye West became a victim rather than some other person. Is it because he is more irritable? If so, why is he so irritable? Is he naturally more irritable or angry than typical people? Or is he suffering from a physical disorder that can be improved with medical technology? Or is it because his personality is more arrogant, or because he has less control of his temper? Or is it because he is much more trusting, gullible, or stupid?

There are "date rape" drugs that supposedly increase a person's sexual cravings. Imagine if somebody developed a drug that causes people to become irritable. This would allow crime networks to instigate fights. It should be obvious that if such a drug were developed, then it would be idiotic for us to figure out how to punish the victim who is secretly given the drug. The only way to solve a problem is to understand the true cause of the problem.

We gain nothing by hating or punishing Kanye West. We need a legal system that operates like a Quality Control Department. We need a legal system that analyzes problems and suggests experiments to reduce the problems. We need a legal system that tries to understand why crimes are occurring, why husbands and wives are fighting with each other, and why business executives are arguing over legal contracts. We need to experiment with methods to reduce these problems. We have to stop trying to satisfy our emotional cravings for revenge.

In America, the legal system and the citizens frequently claim that they are "serving justice" when they punish people, but in reality all they are doing is providing themselves with emotional titillation by hurting the people who annoy them. We gain nothing from this vengeful behavior. It would be much more sensible to experiment with changes to society to reduce the problems, and evict the troublesome people who cannot fit in properly.

A legal system should monitor society

The Quality Control Department of a business doesn't focus on brief moments in time, and it doesn't focus on punishing a person when a problem occurs. Rather, the Quality Control Engineers analyze everything that is going on in the business, and for the purpose of improving their products, raising morale, increasing the efficiency of the operations, and making the environment safer and more pleasant. They try to improve the business, not punish people.

Our legal system should also be trying to bring improvements, not argue about punishments, or whether somebody deserves an incredibly large financial reward. A legal system should watch everything that is going on in society, and for the purpose of bringing improvements to our lives and reducing disputes between people. Their goal should be to improve morale, the efficiency of our society, and the environment in which we raise children.

Our legal system should observe how the social environment affects us. The lawyers should analyze the disputes and fights between people. The lawyers should want to know how people's attitudes are being influenced by the economic system, holiday celebrations, and schools. They should want to know what is causing arguments and disputes between men and women, businesses, and employees. By understanding how our social environment is influencing disputes, they can offer suggestions on how we might alter society to reduce these problems.

In regards to the Kanye West outburst, in addition to looking at his past and how other people influenced him, they need to watch the future to ensure that their policies on this issue are truly bringing improvements to society rather than doing nothing or making our situation worse.

By watching Kanye West after he had his outburst, our legal system would notice that he received publicity by the media. For example, in 2010 (I mentioned it here but without any details), Matt Lauer interviewed Kanye West on television about remarks he made years earlier about President Bush. Millions of people around the world have made critical remarks about President Bush. I have some critical remarks about Bush on my website, and you may have made some critical remarks, also. However, Matt Lauer selected Kanye West to interview, and Bush also decided to respond only to Kanye West. Don't assume that they did this because they believe Kanye West made the most significant remarks. I think it is because they were successful in manipulating him before, and they were hoping to exploit him again, or, they were trying to torment him in order to keep him under control.

If we had total surveillance of the human population, and if our legal system was analyzing that data from the point of view of trying to understand our social problems, they would notice that our media is focusing on abnormal people who behave in strange manners rather than on people who are behaving properly or offering intelligent opinions. We would also come to the conclusion that these people torment the people they don't like, or who rebel against them. They are using the media to 1) manipulate public opinion, and 2) to intimidate people into obeying them.

Total surveillance of the human population would allow us to observe what happens when an employee of a business has a outburst at a meeting, and we would notice that business executives do not parade the badly behaved people around the business for interviews. An employee who has an obnoxious outburst will be ignored, reprimanded, or fired. He will not get publicity. His outburst will adversely affect his relationships and his chances for promotion. Business executives would not even waste their time trying to torment him by putting him on stage at meetings and making him explain his critical comments. Compare that to the media in which badly behaved people are frequently given extra publicity, and sometimes their own television shows.

The media often claims that they are trying to give us what we want, and that they frequently interview Kanye West, Paris Hilton, and Lady Gaga because the television viewers are interested in such interviews, but have you ever sent a message to the media to tell them what you want on television, movies, or magazines? Have you ever been polled by them about what you want? If we had total surveillance of the human population, then we would be able to see exactly how many phone calls and email messages Matt Lauer received from the public, and how many of those people asked him to interview Kanye West about his opinions on President Bush.

I suspect that an analysis of the people who are contacting the media would show us that the leaders of the media companies do not care what you or I want. They are giving us what they want us to be exposed to. They are manipulating us.

The media will often use such expressions as, "People are upset...", "Experts say...", "Many people believe...", and "There is a lot of anger...". When scientists publish a report in which they claim that a certain percentage of the population has certain characteristics, or is reacting to a drug in a certain manner, they can provide detailed descriptions of the research that brought them to these conclusions. They can say exactly how many people they studied, and they can give names of the people and the dates during which those people were studied, and they can show how they studied those people.

By comparison, the people in the media cannot provide any serious research to back up their claims. If the media were forced to provide details on their claims and prove what they say, we would discover that they are not merely making mistakes or exaggerating. They are frequently lying to us. If a scientist were to create scientific reports in the same manner that journalists create news reports, the scientist would be accused of falsifying reports or lying. The media, by comparison, is getting away with this abuse.

Total surveillance of the human population would show us that the executives in the media companies are not working independently. They are frequently having discussions about who to interview, and which issues to discuss. They are conspiring with one another to manipulate us. They are deliberately choosing to focus on badly behaved people and unpleasant events. It is equivalent to a group of scientists conspiring to lie about global warming in order to promote carbon taxes.

Total surveillance of our society would show us that businesses promote and reward employees who have impressive behavior, talents, and ideas, even if those employees are black, whereas our media ignores such people. Although there are incidents in which women, minorities, ugly people, short people, fat people, or other people are discriminated against by businesses, I think the bias and abuse that we find in the businesses would be trivial compared to what the media is doing to us.

Our media is deliberately choosing to lie about historical issues, and they are trying to sway public opinion by using such expressions as "Experts say...", in the hope that the majority of people will follow along like mindless sheep.

There are lots of people in Egypt, but in July 2013 the news reports were focusing on the Egyptians who are demonstrating on the streets to remove their president. We rarely find interviews of Egyptians who are well behaved or have something intelligent to say.

If we had a sensible legal system, the lawyers would quickly realize that many of our social problems are due to the lies and manipulation of the media. Our legal system would do something about this problem, not ignore it. Why is our legal system ignoring the lies by the media? Don't assume it is because nobody realizes that we are being lied to. There are people all around the world complaining about the lies. I am not the only person. However, nobody can do anything about it because our legal system is so corrupt that the lawyers can ignore and push aside those of us who complain. Our legal system is not merely "worthless"; it is allowing criminals to abuse us.

If a lawyer is not bringing improvements to society, he is as worthless as an employee who is not doing anything for his business. A lawyer who protects criminals is as destructive as an employee who helps criminals steal from his business. Don't be intimidated by lawyers into focusing on some brief moment in time, and focusing on whether a person should be punished. We must find the courage to experiment with a more useful legal system. Also, don't be fooled by people who claim that criticism of our legal system is unpatriotic or anti-American. Only an un-American idiot or a criminal would want to continue supporting our corrupt, worthless legal system.

The killing of Kelly Danaher

Raoul Rodriguez was recently convicted of murder when he shot and killed his neighbor, Kelly Danaher. Since he recorded the confrontation on video, there is no dispute that he killed Danaher. The lawyers focused attention on the video, and by doing so, it becomes rather obvious that Rodriguez initiated the confrontation, and that he deliberately repeated the statement that his "life was in danger" in order to justify shooting somebody and claiming that it was self-defense.

Instead of focusing on a few minutes of a confrontation, a more sensible legal system should be analyzing such issues as, Why did the confrontation happen? How do we reduce these confrontations? A more serious legal system would look farther back in time at what was going on in the lives of these people to cause them to end up in a violent confrontation.

During the trial, the lawyers mentioned that Rodriguez has a history of getting into disputes with his neighbors, but they did not provide any intelligent details about this issue. They did not mention this issue in order to help jurors understand how the relationship between these neighbors escalated into a murder. Instead, they mentioned the previous disputes to make it appear as if Rodriguez is an angry person with an anti-social personality.

In order for a legal system to be useful to us, it must understand the true causes of crimes, and that requires understanding all of the influences on a crime. A legal system should be looking for ways of reducing our disputes, not trying to figure out who to punish and what his punishment should be. We need to look at the lives of those people, understand the earlier disputes, and understand what led up to the killing.

When Loretta Bobbitt cut off her husband's penis, our legal system did the unusual and unexpected; the lawyers looked at her life and considered what would influence her to commit such a crime. She was considered not guilty. I suppose the act of cutting off a man's penis is like a slap in the face to a man. It causes the male lawyers and judges to momentarily think about the issue in a serious manner.

Another example is when Catherine Kieu cut off her husband's penis. Once again our lawyers behaved in a momentarily intelligent manner by analyzing her life to determine why she did such a thing. The courts came to the conclusion she was upset that her husband wanted a divorce. Our courts did not consider that to be a justifiable reason for cutting off a man's penis. Furthermore, she put his penis in a garbage disposal, making it impossible for surgeons to reattach it.

All crimes should be analyzed with such thoroughness that we know all of the influences that led up to the crime. When a neighbor poisons a neighbor's dog, we should not focus on the few seconds during which the poisoning occurred. We should instead analyze the lives of the people and try to determine all of the influences that led up to the incident. Then, instead of trying to punish somebody, we should analyze society and try to determine how to reduce these problems. What sort of restriction should we put on pet owners? What should our policy be on providing citizens with access to chemicals and equipment that can be used for making poisons? What should we do about dogs that bark incessantly? What should we do about dogs that bite people?

I suppose that if Rodriguez had cut off Danaher's penis, the courts would seriously analyze the lives of Rodriguez and Danaher in order to figure out why Rodriguez would do such a thing, and the police might have considered measuring the drug and alcohol levels of all people involved with the incident. Since Rodriguez used a gun to kill one man and wound two others, nobody cares whether any of the men were intoxicated or on drugs. The lawyers focus on the few moments during which the gun was fired rather than try to understand what led up to the killing. A more sensible legal system would investigate the lives of the people and try to determine all of the influences that led up to this killing. And then they would try to find ways to improve society rather than argue over who to punish and what the punishment should be.

I did not bother to investigate this killing, but after scanning through a few news articles, I would describe this event as a typical problem in many societies, especially America. America is trying to follow the melting pot philosophy in which everybody is expected to live and work with other people regardless of whether they like one another. Americans are not allowed to live in neighborhoods with their friends because we are not allowed to "discriminate". Businesses are not allowed to discriminate against job applicants, and so businesses cannot pick employees who enjoy working together. Americans are forced to live and work with whoever happens to be their neighbor, and the end result is that we are sometimes living next to people who speak different languages, or have completely different lifestyles, and we are often working with people we fear, despise, or have nothing in common with. I would say America's melting pot philosophy is one of the reasons we suffer so many disputes between neighbors and employees.

The melting pot philosophy is emotionally pleasing, but we cannot follow a policy simply because it titillates us. Men are strongly attracted to pornography, but that doesn't mean we should promote it on television, advertisements, and movies. Children have strong emotional cravings for sweet foods, but that doesn't justify giving them unlimited access to it.

We have to analyze all policies from the point of view of their advantages and disadvantages to society. We also have to experiment with new policies. Some of our problems are so complex that we will not be able to figure out what the advantages and disadvantages are. In some cases we are simply going to have to experiment with different policies and watch the results.

Imagine if a city in America finds the emotional strength to do such an experiment. Imagine that the city officials announce that everybody in their city is now free to discriminate in neighborhoods and businesses. Each neighborhood is allowed to evict the neighbors that they don't like, and they can discriminate against who moves in. Every business is allowed to fire people for any reason, and they do not have to give a reason. They can fire an employee simply because the other members in the group do not enjoy working with him.

What would be the result of such a policy? I suspect that there would be an emotionally traumatic transition period that might last for a couple years, but eventually the people would settle down and adapt to the new policy. I think that a tourist who wandered through the neighborhoods would notice a dramatic improvement in the lives of the people. A tourist would notice that the people in a neighborhood are so friendly with one another that they rarely travel around their city to visit friends, and rarely drive their children to other people's houses. Instead, they usually just walk outside and visit their neighbors. A tourist would notice that the people who enjoy getting drunk and having loud parties are living in certain neighborhoods, and the people who want quiet evenings are in a different neighborhood. The people who want dogs are in one area, and the people who want to get away from pets are in a different neighborhood.

If a tourist were to visit the businesses, he would notice that the work environment is more pleasant for the employees. He would notice that the employees are friendlier with one another, and they spend their lunch together more often, and they sometimes get together after work.

I think America's melting pot philosophy has a lot of disadvantages, such as encouraging loneliness and fights, and causing people to waste a lot of time and resources on traveling around the city to visit friends. What is the benefit to society for following this philosophy? I cannot think of any advantages.

In the case of Raul Rodriguez, it is possible that he was so anti-social that he would have gotten into a fight with his neighbors no matter where he was living, but even if that were true, that doesn't justify the melting pot philosophy. There will always be some people who are so different from the others that they will not fit in no matter where they live.

Many people in America would have been annoyed by Rodriguez if they were living next to him, but many other people would have been annoyed if they were living next to Danaher. There is no right or wrong way for people to live. Some people would describe Danaher as a fun-loving, sociable man who enjoyed parties, but others would describe him as an obnoxious drunk who had no consideration for his neighbors. Some people might describe Rodriguez as an anti-social, violent man who wanted to dominate the neighborhood, but others might describe him as a man who wanted an orderly, quiet neighborhood.

If our legal system did a proper analysis of the killing of Kelly Danaher, they would come to the conclusion that it was the result of incompatible neighbors getting into arguments, eventually escalating to the point at which Rodriguez became so irritated that he decided to set up a confrontation in the hope that he could shoot Danaher. I would describe it as being similar to the situations in which a person becomes so annoyed by his neighbor's dog that he poisons the dog.

Our legal system wants to blame and punish somebody, but why not blame Danaher for being such an irritation that he caused his neighbor to want to kill him? Or why not blame Danaher for confronting Rodriguez? Danaher and his friends could clearly see that Rodriguez was pointing a gun at them. Rodriguez was holding a light and a video camera, and he was telling them to stay away, but Danaher ignored the obvious danger and moved towards Rodriguez in a defiant manner. Then, after Danaher was shot, two other men rushed at Rodriguez, so he shot them, also.

Imagine an extreme example. Imagine if after those other two men were shot, several other men decided to attack Rodriguez, and so he shoots them, also. And then imagine that a couple other men decide to attack Rodriguez, and he shoots them. And then imagine that this goes on for five hours and that Rodriguez ends up shooting several thousand men. At what point would you say that the people who are attacking Rodriguez are idiots?

Why not say that Danaher and his friends behaved like obnoxious, arrogant jerks, and that it is their own fault for getting shot? If Rodriguez was pointing a gun at you and telling you that he will shoot if you don't get back, would you confront him in a defiant manner? Or would you calmly walk away?

If we were to analyze the lives of all of those men, we might find that the men who got shot had behaved in an obnoxious, defiant manner with several other people during the past few years, and that Rodriguez had also displayed potentially violent behavior with other people, but in all those previous cases, the other person walked away calmly, thereby avoiding violence. An analysis of the men who did not fight with Rodriguez might show us that they had been more peaceful during their lives compared to the men who got shot. Therefore, we might conclude that the violent confrontation was a result of some unusually arrogant and violent men getting into a dispute and refusing to back down.

A serious analysis of Danaher's killing might also show us that he and the other men were intoxicated. Police regularly check the alcohol level of people involved in automobile accidents, but they do not yet apply this policy to other types of crimes and disputes. Ideally, the police would have checked the alcohol and drug level of everybody involved in Danaher's killing.

The news reporters want to portray Danaher and his friends as innocent victims, rather than give us a serious analysis of what happened, so they provide us with emotionally stimulating photos of his children and his smiling face rather than provide us with useful details, but to thoroughly understand any type of crime or dispute we should know the drug and alcohol levels of the people involved.

If our legal system was seriously interested in reducing crimes, the lawyers would be fully aware of the rather obvious fact that alcohol plays a significant role in a lot of fights, divorces, disputes, automobile accidents, and work related injuries. We need to understand the role alcohol is playing, and experiment with policies to reduce this problem.

There is no right or wrong in regards to drug use. America has been attracting people with alcohol and drug problems for centuries, and as a result, most Americans consider alcohol to be an "adult beverage", and they demand the freedom to drink alcohol whenever they please, and in whatever quantities they please. There are so many Americans who enjoy becoming intoxicated that our society does not merely tolerate alcohol; we promote it. However, whether citizens should have unlimited access to alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, guns, marriage, chidren, or anything else, depends upon your personality.

A more sensible legal system would analyze the problems caused by drugs and offer suggestions on what we could experiment with in order to reduce the problems. I've mentioned some possibilities in other documents, such as a city that restricts drug use to certain buildings or areas and prohibits it in neighborhoods, or allowing different neighborhoods or different cities to have different drug policies. This would allow people to use whatever drugs they want without irritating other people or causing accidents.

A more sensible legal system would also have noticed that Danaher was killed with a gun that Rodriguez legally owned. One of the men that Rodriguez confronted implied that he had a gun in the house. It is possible that many of the people in that neighborhood had guns, and millions of other Americans have guns. The gun fanatics claim that guns will protect us, but guns did not protect any of the men that Rodriguez killed and wounded.

A more sensible legal system would analyze the issue of providing citizens with guns to determine if this policy is providing benefits that outweigh the disadvantages, and our lawyers should be offering suggestions on how we might be able to improve our gun policies. My suspicion is that if we were to analyze all of the ordinary citizens with guns, we would find that they have done nothing to reduce burglary, corruption, rape, pedophilia, divorce, teenage gangs, drug addiction, sex slavery, illegal immigration, unwanted pregnancies, orphans, venereal disease, kidnappings, or any other type of crime or social problem.

If we cannot find the emotional strength to look critically at our drug and gun policies, and if we cannot find the courage to experiment with different policies, then we will continue on the same path and suffer the same problems forever. Likewise, if we cannot find the courage to experiment with a more sensible legal system, we will never enjoy the benefits of a more advanced system. We will continue wasting our time focusing on a few seconds of a crime, and then wasting our time determining what sort of punishment we should give somebody. As long as we mindlessly follow our ancestors, everything will remain the same. Nothing will improve.

We need to understand how our environment affects us

The only way we are going to reduce our social problems is to toss our legal system in the trash and create a legal system that is designed to analyze problems for the purpose of understanding why we have these problems. Our legal system should be looking for an explanation of crimes, not trying to figure out who to punish.

None of us live in isolation. We constantly interact with other people and influence one another, especially now that we have the Internet and telephones. We are in contact with people around the world. The only way to understand a social problem is to stop focusing on a few seconds in time and look at a person's entire life, and become aware of all of the people and events that influenced his behavior.

Imagine if there was total surveillance of the human population, and all of this information was in a public database. We would be able to look through the video and audio of anybody's life and do an analysis of him. Although it would be very difficult to make sense of such large quantities of data, those analyses would be valuable in many ways. For example, it would help us determine which influences are the most beneficial to children, and which are giving the children bad attitudes or causing fights. It would help us pass judgment on the value of different types of cartoons, video games, sports activities, and holiday celebrations.

Are we helping children when we teach them about Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, and the Easter Bunny? Maybe, but if we were to find the courage to eliminate secrecy, record information about everybody's life, and experiment with society, we might discover that children are becoming happier, better adjusted adults without those fantasies. What effect does the sexual titillation in television programs and advertisements have on us? What effect does the free enterprise system have on us? What effect are the religions having? These are the type of issues a legal system should be investigating.

As I wrote here years ago, a young girl in my neighborhood was imitating a skit from Beavis and Butthead. Some people might respond that she eventually outgrew that, but how do we know that was the only concept that she picked up from the media? I can see from my own life that I picked up a lot of ideas from the media in regards to women, houses, jobs, marriage, money, and other issues. When I became an adult, I ended up coming to the conclusion that many of the ideas I picked up were unrealistic or stupid. If we can figure out how to provide children with a more appropriate environment, then they will become adults who are less confused, frustrated, and lonely.

Participate or become a victim

Leon's lawyer claims that some of my original remarks about Leon are "libel". Lawyers want us to believe that they have the education and/or intelligence to determine what is and is not libel, but libel is a personal opinion that has no right or wrong. Libel is whatever you want it to be.

If you don't participate in the discussion of what is and is not libel, then you are allowing a small group of lawyers and judges to make the decisions for you. This would be acceptable if our legal system was dominated by intelligent, responsible, and considerate people who were working for the best interest of society, but I suspect that the majority of lawyers and judges are working for a Jewish crime network.

Don't disregard the fact that Jews have not yet been investigated, let alone arrested, for the 9/11 attack. This should be considered as proof that our legal system is dominated by the same Jewish crime network that is responsible for the 9/11 attack. Larry Silverstein, for example, should be investigated for the destruction of Building 7, and insurance companies ought to be investigating him for insurance fraud. However, our legal system is more interested in arresting black people who sell marijuana, and Lindsay Lohan has been in court more times than all of the people who are responsible for the 9/11 attack.

If you don't participate in setting the future course of the human race, you are allowing criminals and weirdos to make decisions about your future. Get involved in these issues! Lawyers and judges do not have any better understanding of the concept of "libel" than you do. Don't assume that a person who goes to a law school has a greater understanding than you of society, libel, opinions, morality, life, crime, or other social issues.

A person who goes to a religious school doesn't become any more knowledgeable than you about God, life, or the creation of the universe. Almost everybody has gone to school, so don't be intimidated or impressed by somebody who boasts that he graduated from a school. If a person is truly talented and intelligent, he will be able to use his education to do something impressive.

I recommend that you review the behavior of the Germans after World War II was over when Eisenhower put possibly 1 million of them in a field. They could have escaped, but they quietly sat there on the dirt, and slowly died from lack of water and food. How many more millions of people are going to allow themselves to be abused, raped, and killed before we find enough humans to stand up to this abuse?

Most people today are behaving just like those Germans. Most people quietly allow crime networks to cheat them in the financial industry; they allow credit card companies and real estate agents to take percentages of transactions; they allow banks to charge compound interest rates; they allow teenage gangs to vandalize their city; they allow journalists to lie about the 9/11 attack; they allow professors to lie about historical events; and they allow judges and lawyers to use our legal system for their own personal profit and to help Jews prevent us from investigating the Holocaust and 9/11.

Don't look at the world like a primitive savage in 30,000 BC. Those savages considered themselves to be isolated humans, and that if they hid in a bush, nobody would see them. That behavior is no longer sensible.

Yes, you can hide in the bushes and ignore what is going on around you, but you cannot avoid being influenced by events and other people. You can ignore the 9/11 attack, for example, and you can ignore the lies about the Holocaust and the Apollo moon landing, but you are going to be directly or indirectly harmed by these problems. By ignoring crimes, you allow crime networks to thrive and prosper. To restate this concept, you can ignore a problem, but you cannot avoid being harmed by it.

All legal cases should be open to the public so that we can see who is fighting, what they are fighting about, and what the lawyers are doing about the fights. Studying the fights between people can be valuable. For example, that knowledge can help us make decisions on experiments to alter society in an attempt to reduce the fights. That knowledge would also help us pass judgment on who among us is the instigating the most fights. It also allows us to pass judgment on which of the lawyers are helping to understand and resolve disputes; which are merely profiting from the disputes; and which are prolonging or exasperating the disputes.

Why should Leon and his lawyer be allowed to fight with me in secrecy? Why should his lawyer be allowed to make demands to me in secrecy? Why should you not have access to information about this fight? I would say that you not only have a right to observe this fight, you have a right to get involved. All legal disputes affect everybody in society, so everybody has a right to get involved and express their opinions about them.

It is in everybody's best interest that we open up our legal system so that we can review the performance of lawyers and judges, just as we review the performance of waitresses, plumbers, gardeners, and airline pilots. Lawyers should have the same type of job performance reviews as everybody else, and we should be far able to remove lawyers who are not doing something to help society. A business would fire an employee who is merely helping himself rather than helping the business. Likewise, if the only thing a lawyer can do is make money for himself, he is worthless to society and he should be forced to find a job in which he will become a more productive citizen.

We should discuss such issues as, what is the purpose of a lawyer? Is it to make money from fights? If you agree with me that a lawyer should be a benefit to society, then we should analyze their actions and pass judgment on whether they are helping society, hurting society, or helping themselves. The lawyers who do nothing to improve society should be fired on the grounds that they are useless.

Unfortunately, in America, lawyers have the special privilege of being able to do their own job performance reviews. This allows the dishonest lawyers to eliminate the lawyers who show signs of honesty, thereby allowing them to maintain a network of criminal lawyers and judges. By eliminating honest lawyers, the dishonest lawyers can prevent the police and citizens from arresting Larry Silverstein and other people involved with the 9/11 attack, and the lawyers can prevent people from filing lawsuits against the authors of history books and PBS documentaries who lie about the Holocaust, the world wars, and the Apollo moon landing. It also allows the lawyers and judges to convict people of crimes that the Jews committed, such as convicting an Arab of the 9/11 attack, as I mentioned in this article.

The Jews may have even more control over the European legal system. The European courts have already arrested some people for investigating the Holocaust. They seem to arrest only their own puppets in an attempt to intimidate people, but the point I'm trying to make is that they are doing something that is truly idiotic, and they are doing it legally. The ability to arrest a person for Holocaust denial is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the European legal system is under the control of a Jewish crime network, but the European sheeple are doing nothing about it. We should be discussing possible improvements to our legal system, not allowing these criminals to continue abusing us.

Lawyers try to intimidate us by demanding that we follow the law, and they make pompous claims, such as the remark by Leon's lawyer, "True justice is blind, and that's what I stand for." Don't be fooled by those remarks. Our legal system is not fair or honest. It is corrupt. Our lawyers should be arrested, not respected or pampered with large incomes.

Our legal system is so thoroughly dominated by Jewish criminals that it has allowed Jews to demolish the World Trade Center buildings and Building 7 while television crews broadcast the demolition to the world. In a honest legal system, those videos would be considered as evidence of an horrible crime, but in the American legal system, those videos are treated as "news reports" of Arab terrorism. I would describe any American or European who respects his legal system as either incredibly naive, incredibly stupid, and/or too emotionally weak to look critically at his nation.

How do we determine if a particular remark should be classified as libel, sensible, educational, stupid, informative, inspirational, insightful, meaningless, irrelevant, or some other category? Unfortunately, these determinations depend upon your education, personality, and ability to think. These are not mathematical questions that have definite answers that can be proven right or wrong.

As I mentioned in other files, life is becoming increasingly complex for humans, and it requires that people spend more time thinking and discussing issues rather than reacting emotionally like an animal. The issue of what is and is not "libel" is a complex issue that our primitive ancestors didn't have to worry about, but which is becoming increasingly important in the world today because everybody, even young children, can easily post documents on the Internet for the entire world to see. We need to develop sensible policies for this issue.

In other documents I recommended that we judge people according to their effect on society. Everybody should contribute something of value to society, and everybody should help maintain morale. A homeless person who quietly survives by eating trash and sleeping in the park is not hurting society, but he is not contributing anything of value. He is merely existing, like a rat or a pigeon. A lawyer who is merely profiting from crimes is no better than a homeless bum because he is not contributing anything, either.

I also recommend that we judge people according to their "intent" or "motive". For example, if a person were envious of you and tried to kill you, but if he was so incompetent that his attempts were such failures that nobody noticed that he was trying to kill you, some people might claim that he is harmless, but I would say that a person is undesirable regardless of whether he fails in his attempts to cause trouble. The American legal system gives special treatment to the stupid criminals who are failures, but I don't think we should give them special treatment.

Would you classify this magazine cover as news, journalism, entertainment, gossip, libel, disgusting, appalling, or educational?

When trying to determine if a document is "libel", we need to look at its effect on society, and the intent of the author. For example, the image to the right shows the cover of a magazine which announces an article about Angelina Jolie. I did not try to figure out what effect that article had on society, and I have not investigated the journalists to figure out what their motivation was for writing it, but I think that an analysis would show us that the article is detrimental to society, and that the journalists deliberately wrote that article in an attempt to hurt the image of Angelina Jolie. I don't think the people who wrote or published that article could possibly be so stupid that they would consider such an article to be useful, educational, or even serious. I would accuse the people involved with writing and publishing that article as creating "libel".

Virtually everybody who is married had some prior relationships that failed, and some people have also had some failed marriages. Relationships between men and women in our modern era are fragile, and so almost everybody has had a few failed relationships. This makes it very easy for a journalist to claim that a person has "stolen" his spouse. For example, if your spouse was in a relationship prior to getting involved with you, then somebody could claim that you stole your spouse from that other person.

Imagine seeing yourself on the cover of a magazine. Imagine the magazine announcing that somebody has written a shocking, new, tell-all book that finally exposes "the truth" about how you stole somebody's spouse. Imagine the cover boasting that it has the "heartbreaking details" of your seduction. If such an article had been written about you, would you consider it to be serious journalism? If not, then why should it be considered journalism when written about somebody else?

The relationship between an employee and his company is also unstable. As a result, employees occasionally quit and go to work for some other business, school, or government agency. Sometimes a business tries to convince an employee of another company, government agency, or school, to quit their job and work for them. What would you think of a magazine that had a cover story about an employee who moved from one company to another, and they had headlines like this:
A shocking, new, tell-all book. How General Motors stole John Doe. Finally the truth! Heartbreaking details of the seduction and why it still tortures Chrysler.

It's also important to note that businesses would not tolerate the disgusting journalism that the citizens tolerate. To understand this concept, imagine if you were working for a business in which the executives allow employees to produce newsletters that have the same low standards that we tolerate in television, history documentaries, school books, and magazines. Imagine some employees distributing a company newsletter in which one of the issues has a cover photo of you, and the headline offers the heartbreaking details of how you stole somebody's spouse.

I don't think any business, except perhaps those operated by teenagers or crime networks, would tolerate employees who produce the type of documents that our media is producing. I think most business executives would describe such journalism as a waste of the company's resources and destructive to the morale of the business.

Actually, we are doing worse than merely tolerating libelous and idiotic articles from journalists. We also allow them to lie to us about the 9/11 attack, the Apollo moon landing, and many other historical events. Imagine business executives allowing their employees to produce newsletters that contain lies of similar magnitude. Would you respect the management if they allowed the company newsletters to be full of horrendous lies?

Virtually every business has set standards for their employees that are higher than the standards our society has set for its citizens. The obvious reason as to why businesses can set higher standards is that they can fire the people who don't meet the standards. The not-so-obvious reason that businesses have higher standards is that most businesses are "meritocracies", not democracies, monarchies, or dictatorships.

Although some business executives are members of crime networks, and some businesses have problems with nepotism, the management of most businesses tend to be the employees who have shown the best leadership skills. As a result, businesses tend to have higher quality leadership compared to nations. Furthermore, since businesses are not democracies, the management is allowed to do what is best for the organization rather than pander to the employees.

No nation can set high standards for its citizens because no nation wants to deal with the issue of what to do about the citizens who cannot meet the standards.

This concept can also be seen in regards to vehicles, dangerous chemicals, and guns. Businesses, police departments, and other organizations that must provide guns to some of their employees do not let an employee have access to a gun unless the employee has been trained and has shown evidence that he knows how to use a gun in a safe manner. If an employee needs to use dangerous machinery or dangerous chemicals, businesses require that they have some training, and that they show evidence that they know how to use those items properly. Businesses do not provide their employees with the right to use guns, forklifts, induction furnaces, acids, or lasers. Employees have to earn what they want.

By comparison, American citizens don't have to meet any standards in order to purchase a gun. The citizens don't need any training, education, or practice. American society doesn't have high standards for people driving automobiles, either. And there are no standards at all for people who want to have children.

Furthermore, most businesses do not have the equivalent of "tenure". For example, if an employee qualifies to operate some dangerous machinery, he is not given a certificate that allows him to use that machinery forever in any manner he pleases. He must continuously prove that he can operate it properly, and he will occasionally be given a performance review.

By comparison, when a person gets a job as a journalist, government official, or professor, he has essentially crossed through a one-way boundary between the earth and heaven. He can behave in almost any manner he pleases. It is almost impossible to fire a government official or professor, regardless of how many crimes he has been accused of, and regardless of how incompetent he is. Some journalists, such as Barbara Walters and Mike Wallace, have been journalists throughout my entire life. There is no way we can replace them, regardless of how many times they lie to us, and regardless of how destructive they are to society. They don't have to worry about job performance reviews.

There is no rule in the universe that requires a society to have lower standards for its citizens than the businesses are setting for their employees. We could design a society in which there is only one set of standards for everybody to follow at all times and days. In such a society, there would be only one standard for driving vehicles, and both employees and people in their leisure time would have to meet those standards. In that type of society, a person who qualified for driving a certain type of vehicle under certain conditions for one business, would automatically qualify to drive the same vehicle under the same conditions for other businesses. Conversely, if a person could not qualify to drive a certain vehicle for the business that he worked for, then he would not be able to drive that vehicle for any other organization, or for his own leisure.

By having one, higher standard for everybody, businesses would not have to disregard a person's work experience and put them through tests or training. They would be able to trust the certifications from other businesses and government agencies. We already do this to a certain extent, but we could expand upon this policy.

Forcing everybody in society to meet one, higher level of standards is possible only if a society is willing to do something about the people who cannot meet the standards. For example, Germany has higher standards for automobile drivers than America, and the reason they can do it is that they provide alternative transportation methods for the people who cannot qualify. By designing a city with such an excellent public transportation system that a person can travel anywhere without a vehicle, standards for driving can be raised to an even higher level, such as what we expect for truck, limousine, and bus drivers.

If we were to insist that citizens meet the same standards for behavior that employees in a typical business must meet, then magazines would not be allowed to produce idiotic articles in which they disclose "the truth" about Angelina Jolie's heartbreaking seduction.

Journalists justify those articles by claiming that they are trying to provide the articles that their customers enjoy reading, but even if a journalist truly writes those articles for profit rather than to hurt somebody, that doesn't justify allowing them to do it. Hurting a person for profit should be just as illegal as hurting a person for other reasons. If a person accidentally hurts somebody else, then he can be forgiven, but if he does it deliberately, it should be considered a crime regardless of whether he does it for profit, revenge, a crime network, or envy.

We should not allow journalists or businesses to justify abuse by claiming that they are trying to please their customers. The people who refer to themselves as "conservatives" are constantly pushing us to allow people to have the freedom to do whatever makes a profit, but as I've been describing in my social technology series, we should stop living for profit and shift our emphasis to the quality of human life.

What is the effect on society of my website?

Leon's lawyer wants me to remove the material that I've written about Leon. He implies that my material is hurting Leon. A society should be concerned about the health and happiness of its citizens, but it doesn't make sense for a society to alter its future simply to appease a few people. A society should operate according to what is best for the group.

My website should be judged according to its effect on society, not according to what one or two individuals say about it. Is anything on my website hurting society? There may be some people, such as Leon, who are upset with my documents, but why should we care if some people are upset? We should be concerned about society, not Leon. Some criminals are upset when details of their life are broadcast on television, but we don't care that they are upset. We consider it to be more important to let people know about crimes than to worry about the feelings of a criminal.

It is impossible for a large organization to please all of its members all of the time. Whenever we do something to please one member, we are likely to upset another member. For example, if I remove all remarks about Leon from my website, I will appease Leon, but I would upset the people who are interested in reading my uncensored opinions. How does a society decide who to please when people have conflicting desires? We can't give everybody what they want. Somebody is going to have to suffer. How do we decide who to please and who to tell to suffer silently? Should we please the people who want to censor my website, or should we please the people who want to read what I have to say?

Should we please the people who want alcohol, or the people who want marijuana? Should we please the people who want free access to medical drugs, or the people who want drugs to be available only by prescription? Should we please the people who want abortions, or the people who want to prohibit them? Should we please the people who want citizens to carry guns for their protection, or the people who want a more effective law enforcement system?

There is no way to "figure out" what to do because there are no right or wrong answers to these issues. We simply have to make decisions about what we want our future to become, and then we can answer those questions by discussing, "What would be best for our society given the goals that we have set for our future?"

There are some issues that cause a lot of fighting, such as abortion and euthanasia, but there are some issues that virtually everybody agrees with, such as libel. Nobody wants a society that allows people to make false accusations in an attempt to hurt one another. Since virtually everybody has the same opinion about libel, it should be very easy for us to agree on how to resolve Leon's accusation that I am making libelous remarks.

Unfortunately, no nation has a legal system that is designed to resolve issues. The American legal system puts lawyers into competition with one another to profit from social problems. When an American couple wants a divorce, for example, the lawyers have a financial incentive to keep the man and woman fighting as long as possible. Lawyers have no incentive to resolve divorce cases quickly and efficiently, and they have no incentive to figure out how to modify our laws to make a divorce such a simple procedure that people can do it by themselves, and they have no incentive to study marriages and divorces and try to figure out how to make relationships more stable. We are fools to support such a stupid legal system.

If we had a more sensible legal system, then instead of focusing on Leon's emotional feelings, the legal system would be concerned about the effect my website is having on society and our future. Is my website causing trouble for society? Or is it neutral? Or is it helpful?

I would describe my website as being educational. I would describe my website as helping people to understand some of the crimes that have been occurring, and some of the techniques that the criminals are using to get away with their crimes. I would say I am helping society, not hurting it.

I would say that Leon must provide evidence that censoring some of my material is going to benefit society. We should not care what Leon wants. We should not care if Leon can offer evidence that my website is hurting his feelings, or causing people to treat him differently. Even if my website has brought significant problems for him, such as by causing people to treat him as a criminal, that is his problem, not mine or yours. He is free to defend himself. If people read what I have written about him, and then listen to what he says about himself, and then come to the conclusion that my analysis is more sensible, that is evidence that the material that I have written about him is accurate, and that he cannot refute anything I say.

A legal system should not be designed to please any individual person. It should be designed to make society a better place for all of us as a group. You and I should not live our lives according to the emotional cravings of Leon, or any other individual. Our purpose in life is not to appease any particular person.

A society should not alter the path that it is on simply because somebody is upset. A society should not censor material simply because somebody claims that his feelings have been hurt by the material. Changing the course of society, and censoring material, should be done only when somebody can show that the actions are going to help society. Appeasing an individual, such as Leon, is as foolish as appeasing a King or Queen. We should be serving the human race, not any particular person.

Leon's lawyer tells me that the burden of proof is on me to prove my accusations, but I would say that Leon is responsible for providing evidence that censoring material on my website is going to help society. If there is no benefit to society, then he should be told to shut up. I would also like him to explain why he is unable to defend himself against a person of no importance.

Analyze issues as a Quality Control Engineer would

Earlier I pointed out that I think the cover story about Angelina Jolie's "heartbreaking seduction" should be considered as "libelous". What is the difference between what those journalists wrote about Jolie and what I wrote about Leon? How do we determine which material is libelous?

The solution to this problem is to imagine yourself as a Quality Control Engineer who is responsible for reducing social problems in society. Imagine that your job is to help people form better relationships, enjoy their jobs, have more stable and satisfying friendships, and have more pleasant leisure activities. Your goal is to improve society. You want to figure out how to provide a better environment for children and adults. You and your staff are under pressure to suggest methods to reduce our social problems and make life more pleasant for us. You want children to have more useful skills, be better prepared for society, be better behaved, and be able to form more stable friendships and marriages. You want businesses to provide more pleasant work environments. You want business contracts to be more understandable so that there are fewer disputes over what they say. If you cannot bring improvements society, you will be fired for incompetence.

If you were put into that type of job and had that type of burden placed on you, you and your staff would analyze that article about Angelina Jolie according to its effect on society. You would discuss such issues as, If we could make an exact copy of our city, and in one city we publish the article, and in the other we censor it, how would life be different in those two cities as a result of the article? Would that article provide people with beneficial entertainment or education? Would it encourage good attitudes among the children or adults? Or would it cause arguments, bitterness, or bad attitudes? If we approve the article for publication, we will encourage other authors to create similar articles. Will more of these articles make life even more pleasant for us? Or would we have a more pleasant society if we discouraged these type of articles?

When we look at all of our policies according to its benefit and disadvantage to society, and how they will affect people in the future, then we would realize that we should not do something simply because somebody wants to do it, or simply because some business can profit from it. If something has no value to us, or if it is detrimental, then we ought to put our time and resources into a more beneficial project.

A Quality Control Engineer who analyzes documents from the point of view of their benefits and disadvantages to society, and what would happen if more people mimic the author, would notice two major differences between that article about Jolie and my website. One is that the article is nonsensical whereas I can provide intelligent reasoning for everything I write. Some people may disagree with my reasoning, but at least I can provide it. By comparison, nobody can provide intelligent reasoning for the accusation that they have "heartbreaking details" about how somebody has "stolen" somebody else's spouse.

Second, I think that a Quality Control Engineer would come to the conclusion that no journalist is so stupid that he actually believes that such an article is intelligent, educational, or entertaining. A Quality Control Engineer would come to the conclusion that the intent of that article was to hurt Jolie. By comparison, the intent of my website is to educate people about what is going on, and to inspire them to think about our problems and get involved with making a better world.

A Quality Control Engineer would come to the conclusion that they must censor the article about Jolie because it has no advantages to society, but it has many disadvantages. For example, allowing journalists to use the media as a weapon will hurt the morale of a society and encourage other journalists to do the same. Citizens should be working as a team. We should be inspiring cooperation, not fights or revenge. Furthermore, allowing journalists to produce nonsensical documents will lower the quality of journalism, and this will have a detrimental effect on children, and it can hurt the morale of a nation by causing people to become disgusted with their media, government, and legal system.

Some people might be upset with the material on my website, but since I am not trying to hurt anybody, the people have to complain about the content of my material, not the intent of my material. This forces people to discuss the issues that I write about, which is beneficial to the nation. Furthermore, by allowing people like me to post my opinions, it may encourage other people to post their opinions, and that would be beneficial to society by encouraging people to analyze and discuss issues.

Don't fear censorship; improve it

The concept of providing a society with a Quality Control Department that has the authority to censor material might seem frightening, but the Wikipedia is already censoring material, and so are journalists, history professors, and lots of other people. Furthermore, some journalists are lying to us about the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, and the moon landing.

People are focusing on government censorship and ignoring the millions of people around the world who are censoring information, lying to us, and deceiving us. Furthermore, there will always be censorship. We cannot let people do anything they please. Don't react to censorship like a frightened rabbit. We cannot avoid censorship. We need to face our problems and take control of them.

The difference between allowing a government agency to censor material and what we have right now is that when we let a government agency do it, we can insist that we be allowed to see what they are doing, and that we have some influence over the censorship. It gives us control over our future. By comparison, we don't know who at the Wikipedia is censoring documents, or exactly what they are doing it for. They are operating secretly. Likewise, we don't know who is censoring information in school books or news agencies.

The Discovery Channel, Nova, and PBS are regularly censoring information about the 9/11 attack, the world wars, and the Apollo moon landing, but who in those organizations are doing the censorship? We have no idea. We are fools to complain about government censorship while allowing secretive people scattered around the world to regularly censor our information and lie to us. To make the situation more ridiculous, PBS and some of the other organizations are getting tax money to subsidize their operation! We are paying people to secretly censor our information and lie to us!

The people who have been censoring information in America have been doing such a good job that they have fooled most of the American people into believing that we have no censorship at all. Most Americans have been fooled into believing that only the Chinese and Russians are victims of censorship and propaganda. The American people are suckers!

Don't be afraid of censorship. Censorship is not bad. Parents frequently censor material for their children, but how many parents consider themselves evil for doing so?

The key to making censorship safe is to remove the secrecy from the people who are doing the censorship so that we can see what they are doing, why, and who they associate with. We must bring the censorship out into the open so that everybody can observe what is going on. The best way to do achieve sensible censorship is to let a government agency do the censorship, rather than allowing millions of anonymous people who are not accountable to us.

I should remind you of a concept that I have mentioned many times. Namely, a government will do proper censorship only if we can create a society in which the people are much more responsible than what we see in the world today. If we create a new city, and if the city consists of apathetic sheeple, pedophiles, drug addicts, criminals, and freaks, the government will be exactly like we have right now. Creating a better society requires raising standards for both citizens and government officials.

My website is being blocked

On 11 July 2013 I wrote this particular section about my website being blocked. I had not been able to access my website (EricHufschmid.net) for a couple weeks, except through a proxy, and only some of them in this list. I got a "400 - Bad Request" from Firefox when I tried to access my website, and a different error from Internet Explorer. A few people told me that they were also unable to access my website.

My website is at Yahoo, and it is possible that Yahoo was having a temporary problem that was affecting everybody, but I suspect that some Jews were hoping that they could quietly block my site. For many centuries they have been very successful at controlling the information people had access to. They would quietly kidnap and kill people; quietly remove books from the library; and quietly cut pages out of documents. The Internet, security cameras, cell phones, and other modern technology is interfering with this trick. They cannot control this new technology, and they cannot stop people from passing information around on CD-ROMs or memory sticks. It is their inability to control information that spoiled their attempt to quietly kidnap and kill the Bollyn family. That trick would have worked a decade earlier.

On 10 July 2013 I put a copy of my website at HugeQuestions.com, which is not at Yahoo, and was still working. Two days later I could access my website once again. Perhaps the Jews came to the conclusion that it was hopeless.

We could make the Internet even more difficult for crime networks to use and control if we stopped allowing secrecy with it. If every packet of data that was put on the Internet had to be identified as to its original source, and if each of us could easily get access to that data, then everybody with an Internet connection would be able to determine who is sending spam, and causing other problems, even if the message was going through an anonymous proxy. Furthermore, we don't have to allow anonymous proxies. By removing the secrecy, then anybody who received spam or viruses would be able to contact the FBI and tell them to deal with that particular person. Of course, this requires an FBI that is interested in stopping these problems rather than protecting them.

Imagine if it were legal for people to dress in black robes, drive by our homes and offices, and throw rocks through the windows, and remove books from libraries. Imagine that it was legal for them to hide their identity, and imagine that when you complained to the police, the police refused to do anything.

What is the difference between a) allowing secretive people to throw rocks through your windows and b) allowing secretive people to send you spam, viruses, and Denial of Service attacks? What is the difference between a) allowing secretive people to block websites, and b) allowing secretive people to remove books from libraries and schools?

Many people whine about government surveillance and censorship, but it is not "government" that is abusing us. The abuse is coming from the crime networks within the government agencies, police departments, Google, Verizon, hospitals, the military, the banks, and other businesses and organizations. Some of those criminals have access to our email, financial information, and phone information. We should deal with the criminals who are observing us and censoring our information, not the "government". Our problem is specific people in the government, all of whom could be identified and removed if we can find enough people who care about these issues.

A lot of people and businesses are wasting a lot of time and money trying to deal with spam, Denial Of Service attacks, and computer viruses. Free enterprise is not going to solve this problem, and neither are people who carry guns. Free enterprise actually makes the problem worse because it provides a financial incentive for businesses to profit from the misery rather than stop it. The companies that produce virus protection have an incentive to stop existing viruses, but they depend upon future viruses, so they do not want to prevent the future viruses.

As society becomes more technically advanced, the problems that we face become more complex. This requires the people to become more responsible, intelligent, and concerned about society. A person should not be allowed to vote or influence the economy if he is too stupid to understand, or too irresponsible to care, that spam and computer viruses are a burden on society, and that we should stop those problems rather than ignore them. The same is true for people who cannot understand, or who don't care, that schools are lying about historical events. How can a school curriculum improve when the parents and students are such apathetic sheeple that they don't care whether students learn anything of value?

This also applies to people who cannot understand, or who don't care, that crime networks are censoring websites, and that credit card companies, banks, and financial institutions are abusing us.

The only way to improve a society is to analyze its problems and experiment with solutions. The people who lack the desire or ability to have an intelligent discussion about the problems we face, or who are afraid to experiment with possible solutions, should be classified as second-class citizens, or as savages.

Talk to the people you know about the censorship of my website. Discuss such issues as, "Who is trying to censor EricHufschmid.net, and why? Are there other websites that these mysterious people are trying to block? How are we going to figure out who is doing this unless we let the NSA watch over all of us?"

If an adult doesn't care that secretive people are censoring websites, he should be prohibited from voting and influencing the future of the human race.

Accusations of "anti-Semitism" are libelous

Jews accuse people of being anti-Semites; women accuse men of being sexist; and some people accuse other people of being racists or bigots. I would describe all of these type of accusations as "libelous" because these remarks are intended to hurt a person's reputation rather than convey an intelligent analysis. In verbal conversations, people usually have an angry tone of voice or facial expression when they say these words, which is further evidence that the words are intended to hurt and manipulate rather than educate.

Even if a person smiles as he calls somebody one of those words, that doesn't justify allowing people to use them. Calling somebody an anti-Semite or a racist is as stupid as calling somebody "do-do head". There is no way for a person to defend himself against those types of accusations. Those type of remarks should be censored, and we ought to keep a database of what everybody does so that we can figure out who is making those accusations the most often.

In verbal conversations, Jews regularly refer to people as "anti-Semitic", but when they write documents, they seem to be aware of the legal trouble they could get themselves into, and so they often use other phrases, such as "anti-Israel". However, is "anti-Israel" really any more sensible than "dick-head"? What exactly does "anti-Israel" mean?

If an American were to complain about the American government, would he be "anti-American"? If a person makes a complaint about General Motors, would he be "anti-General Motors"? Would he be guilty of a "hate crime"?

Allowing people to accuse one another of being "anti-Semitic" or committing a "hate crime" is allowing people to accuse one another of a crime that nobody can properly defend himself against. We should not allow people to behave in this manipulative manner. We should censor the accusations that are meaningless and impossible to defend against, and we should keep track of who is behaving in this destructive manner the most often so that we can pass judgment on whether some people are so troublesome that we need to put restrictions on them or evict them.

I have no objection to improving my documents

The material that I wrote about Leon, Peggy, Daryl Smith, and other people is to help you understand what I have been experiencing as a result of trying to expose the demolition of the World Trade Center towers and the Jewish involvement in that attack. I can understand why those people don't like what I wrote about them, but it was not intended to hurt them.

I have been repeatedly contacted by people around the world, and they have behaved in certain manners, such as promoting drugs, pornography, and certain websites. I have written about these people in order to help you learn the methods these people use to manipulate me so that you can avoid becoming a victim of these tricks.

Nobody wants a society that allows people to deliberately hurt one another, but if some "insulting" material can be shown to be useful for society, then we have a complicated decision to make. We have to consider whether the material can be rewritten in a manner that is less insulting while retaining its educational value, and if not, we have to decide whether it is acceptable to let those people whine for the greater good of society.

I agree that a lot of the material on my website is likely to upset some people, and if somebody can figure out how to rewrite my documents so that they are less insulting while still conveying the same information, then I have no problem with posting their version. As I mentioned in other files, I promote the concept of trying to improve the work that other people have done, and that includes my own documents and videos.

Modern humans must take responsibility for their life

However, before somebody spends time trying to make my documents less insulting, they should consider whether their actions will provide any significant improvement to the lives of Leon, Peggy, and the other people that I have written about. My personal opinion is that I have written about people who have unhappy lives, and the reason that their lives are miserable is because of their mind, not because of my website. They were living lonely, miserable lives before they were aware of me. Some of them have had drug and alcohol problems for decades. Most of them also had financial problems for decades. Many of them told me that they had an unpleasant relationship with their children or other relatives.

The people that I have written about have had miserable lives for decades, and they are going to continue having miserable lives even if my website is completely deleted. Censoring my website in an attempt to appease those people is not going to give them a better life, and it's not going to help society. So why should we worry about those people? Is my website really a significant problem to any of them? I don't think so. Are any of them going to notice an improvement in their lives if my website is censored? I don't think so.

Before a society tries to appease a person who is whining about something, we need to consider that the person is whining simply because he is trying to find somebody to blame for his troubles.

Why was Leon insisting that the Bollyn family was free?

Leon is claiming that my website is interfering with his life, and if the American courts were to get involved with this issue, the lawyers would focus on some narrow aspect of the issue, such as whether a particular remark on my website has interfered with Leon's life. It would be more useful to analyze both me and Leon. We should understand why Leon began contacting me in the first place, and what was influencing him to say what he told me. It would also be useful to understand why I decided to write about these people.

Leon called me numerous times on the telephone, sometimes many times in one day, to convince me that I was wrong for assuming the Bollyn family was kidnapped, and that certain people in the truth movement, such as Brandon Schaefer, were actually honest. Why was he telling me this? Where did he get his information? Was somebody secretly influencing him? Or was he being bribed or blackmailed into doing it?

Lawyers might respond that we should focus on the case of libel, not wonder why Leon contacted me, or why he was working with Brandon Schaefer, or why he spent so much time trying to convince me that the Bollyn family was not kidnapped. However, those conversations are the reason I ended up writing about Leon. I came to the conclusion that he was being told to call me by the same Jewish crime network that kidnapped the Bollyn family, and that those Jews were upset that I was bringing attention to the kidnapping, thereby interfering with their plans to quietly remove the Bollyn family and then quietly kill them, and possibly sell the two children as sex slaves. Why should I keep quiet about such an important issue? I think you and everybody else needs to know about Leon and his suspicious behavior, and about how he and other people try to manipulate me. We need to expose and stop this crime network, not pacify them.

As I wrote years ago, other people have vanished mysteriously, such as Peter Kawaja, and Carol Valentine, and the best way to explain those mysterious disappearances is that they were quietly kidnapped, and then probably tortured, raped, and killed. There are also accusations that U.S. Air Force pilots in Vietnam and Korea were set up to be captured, and then sent to prison camps in Russia. People who have suspicions about what happened should feel free to discuss it. As long as the discussions are serious, why should we care if somebody's feelings are hurt?

In May 2012, Father Gabriel Amorth, a Catholic priest in Italy, said that a teenage girl, Emanuela Orlandi, who vanished mysteriously in Rome in 1983, had actually been kidnapped by a gang that consisted of Vatican police and foreign diplomats, and that she was sexually abused and then killed. He didn't have "proof" of his accusation. He only had his opinions based on his personal experiences. If people like him are accused of libel, then it's going to stop other people from coming forward with what they know.

Don't be fooled by the lawyers who try to focus our attention on some narrow aspect of a very large problem. A Quality Control Engineer who is responsible for improving society would want to understand and resolve the dispute between me and Leon, and that requires looking at everything that was leading up to the dispute. He would want to know why Leon initiated a relationship with me, and why he called me so many times, and why he was pressuring me into changing my opinions about the Bollyn family. He would also want to know why I became so suspicious of Leon. He might want to listen to some of the phone calls or look at some of the email messages.

The best way to influence a person's opinion is to control the information that he has access to. This is why lawyers want to censor information in court cases, and it is why they want jurors to remain silent, not take notes, not ask questions, and not have discussions. The lawyers are not trying to help us understand our social problems. They are trying to restrict the information and discussions that the jurors have because that is the only way they can manipulate the opinions of the jury. The lawyers want jurors to remain silent because when we discuss issues and ask questions, we can help one another understand the issue. The lawyers don't want the jury to understand the issue. They want to manipulate the jury. Dictators follow the same policy. They do not encourage the citizens to research issues, discuss society's problems, or recommend possible solutions. They want everybody to be quiet and obedient.

To truly understand disputes between people, we need to look at everything about their lives, and we need the freedom to discuss whatever we find significant. We don't need a lawyer to tell us what is and is not significant. A jury should be able to have access to all information about a dispute, and they should be able to discuss that information, and they should be able to ask for clarification about anything they are confused about. If a juror is so stupid that he needs a lawyer to censor his information and tell him how to think, then he should not qualify as a juror. He should be classified as a "helpless idiot".

If we had total surveillance of the human population, and if we could look at Leon's life, we might discover that Leon was under pressure by the Jewish crime network to initiate a relationship with me, and those Jews were providing him with information to give to me. I think that an analysis of the people who have been contacting me over the past 10 years would show that I am being attacked repeatedly by this crime network. Furthermore, I think that a Quality Control Engineer would come to the conclusion that my website is exposing criminals and their tactics, not making libelous statements about them.

If this case of libel were to go to court, the lawyers would prevent information about Leon's life from becoming a part of the trial. If enough people would stand up to the lawyers, then we could stop the attempts by lawyers to focus our attention on some narrow aspect of a complex problem. We do not have to tolerate such a court system.

When the police encounter an automobile accident, they should not assume that everybody involved is an innocent victim. They should check the license plates of the automobiles to see if any of them have been stolen; they should check the identity of the people involved in the accident to see if any of them are wanted for crimes; and they should check if any of the people are drunk or on drugs.

It is through such analyses that we can reduce traffic accidents. For example, by observing where accidents are happening most often, the police might decide that some roads need to be altered, or a stop sign should be added. By looking at when the accidents occur, they might find that some are primarily in winter when the roads are icy, and that can lead them to some other possible solutions. By comparison, if the police focus on the narrow sliver of time during which the accident occurred, and if they focus on who should be blamed and punished, they will not learn how to reduce future accidents.

A person who is injured in a car accident might whine if the police check his identity or his alcohol level, but the police should tell him to shut up. Likewise, we should tell the lawyers to shut up when they tell us that we should focus on a narrow sliver of time rather than analyze everything that led up to the incident.

In addition to determining why events occur, a court system should also pass judgment on who is complaining, and why. Our courts should not automatically assume that a person who is whining about something actually has a valid complaint, and that we should be concerned about his whining. For example, we should not allow criminals to use the courts as a weapon to attack their enemies, or allow business executives to use the courts to hurt their competitors, or allow angry people to use the courts to get revenge on one another. The purpose of a court system should be to improve society, and that requires the courts pass judgment on whether a case is beneficial to society, or if people are using the courts to fight with one another.

The emphasis on money encourages crime

Earlier I mentioned that if we analyze the cause of crimes, divorces, and disputes, we will be able to figure out ways to alter society to reduce these problems. An example is our emphasis on money. If we analyze crimes as a Quality Control Engineer would, we would come to the conclusion that our emphasis on money and our free enterprise system is encouraging criminal activities and divorces by giving people bad attitudes and causing people to argue over money. For example, free enterprise encourages businesses to consider customers as profit opportunities rather than as humans or team members, and to regard their competitors as enemies rather than as friends.

For another example, offering people the opportunity to invest in the stock market encourages people to look for ways to make money without earning it. Allowing them to sell stocks immediately after purchasing them allows them to use the stock market as a gambling casino, and as a tool to manipulate businesses and other investors. This encourages people to spend their time on activities that have no benefit to society.

For another example, when women show an interest in money, and when they show no concern for how a man acquires his money, they add to this problem by putting pressure on men to acquire money with no regard for how.

A Quality Control Engineer who was responsible for reducing crime would want to understand all of the factors that influence crime, divorce, arguments over legal contracts, and other disputes. A thorough analysis of our social problems would show us that our society is encouraging crimes by promoting idiotic attitudes towards money, encouraging people to compete with one another for money, and allowing people to make money without earning it.

I think we can bring significant improvements to society if we can figure out how to design a society that eliminates the emphasis on money, such as what I described in other files in which everybody has the same income and housing. In that type of economy, there is no competition for money, and women cannot put any pressure on men to acquire money. It would also be impossible to make money from investments, inheritances, gambling, or crime.

I think those type of changes would bring significant reductions in divorce and crime. It would also eliminate disputes between employees over incomes. Businesses would compete to make life more pleasant for everybody, and that would cause them to regard their customers, the government, and the other businesses as team members, friends, and family.

Every nation has a 100% failure rate in regards to stopping crime, divorce, and other types of disputes, and rather than continue to promote the same failed policies in the hope that one day they will magically become successful, we should face the fact that we must start experimenting with changes to our attitudes and our society.

I don't think there is a simple solution to crime. I think we need to experiment with ways to make modern society more appropriate for the human mind, such as by providing everybody with virtually the same income so that men compete for the benefit of society rather than for money. Also, I think we must evict the people who are destructive.

Men are very competitive, but our emotions do not care what we compete for. This is causing men to routinely get into absurd, wasteful, sometimes dangerous competitions, such as competitions for money. I recently saw this bizarre video of some young men who are competing to ride a bicycle over some sticks and other bits of trash, and about halfway through the video, one man decides to outdo the others in bizarre behavior by vomiting on the bicycle "track", and another man is inspired to outdo that by rolling around in the vomit. What is the difference between a) men who are trying to impress one another by riding a bicycle over trash, and b) business executives who are struggling to impress one another with a giant mansion and a giant yacht, and c) scientists who are struggling to impress one another with various awards? We might say that one group is slightly more advanced than the others, but all groups are just monkeys who are wasting their time on senseless competitions that have no benefit to any of the men or to society.

We don't have to continue living like this. We could design a society in which men compete for more sensible goals in both their work and leisure time. However, we are not going to improve anything if people are afraid to experiment with changes. We must be willing to experiment with our economy, social activities, leisure activities, attitudes towards life, and our attitudes towards government. So try to find the courage to experiment with your future. Let's not die of old age thinking about these issues. Let's do something!

After we design a better legal system, we need to design school courses so that students are trained for the improved system rather than what we have right now. As I've complained in other files, our schools are primarily teaching children to memorize information, and we need to switch to giving them practice in thinking, researching, and critically analyzing themselves and society. I would say that three problems with our current law schools are that they are teaching students:

The citizens need to know the laws and follow them, but the officials in the legal system should regard laws as "opinions". Law students should be taught to routinely analyze laws for the purpose of determining whether any of them should be updated or eliminated to deal with changes in society or technology. Law schools should give students assignments to analyze laws, and the school should pass judgment on which of the students is showing the ability to do an analysis properly. A lawyer who cannot provide an intelligent analysis of a law is not going to do us any good. If all he can do is memorize and follow laws, he is no better than an ordinary citizen.

We should make our own path in life, not follow our ancestors. Law students should be taught to analyze previous cases only to learn from them, not use them as a "precedent". The students could be given assignments to analyze previous cases, and the school should pass judgment on which of those students is showing the ability to find valuable lessons from those cases. A lawyer who is not capable of learning something from a previous legal case has no value to us. If all he can do is mimic other people, he could be replaced by a teenager.

Modern humans must follow a lot of procedures. In manufacturing, for example, the employees follow certain procedures for processing raw materials and welding parts together. The employees must learn those procedures, and they must be able to follow them, in some cases, very precisely. However, the people who are in leadership positions must be aware that procedures are never perfect. Procedures can be improved upon. People in leadership positions should not promote the attitude that established procedures are the best possible, and that anybody who criticizes them is unpatriotic.

In regards to a legal system, every legal system is going to have certain procedures that the people and lawyers must follow. However, everybody should keep in mind that those procedures are simply whatever somebody created. They are not the ultimate procedures. We can change our legal system whenever we can find a reason to do so. We are not unpatriotic when we suggest experimenting with changes. We can completely discard our legal system and start over if we want. We can also change the procedures that our economic system operates with, and we can change the procedures that we use for electing government officials. We must stop people from promoting the attitude that it is unpatriotic to change the rules of society.

People who stifle constructive criticism should be considered as "jerks", not "patriots"

Unfortunately, in a free enterprise system, instead of encouraging people to improve our society, many people have a financial incentive to make their job so confusing and difficult that other people do not attempt to do it. Lawyers and real estate agents are good examples of this problem. We are not rewarded for figuring out how to improve efficiency to such an extent that we can eliminate our jobs.

In order to bring significant improvements to human life, we must change our economic system so that there are no financial incentives to hurt people, operate inefficiently, cheat people, or waste resources. In a better economic system, our incentive would be to bring any type of improvement to society, including figuring out how to eliminate our job.

Lawyers should have an incentive to find ways to make the legal system so easy to use that we can deal with a lot of legal problems on our own. The people involved with housing and land issues should have an incentive to make our real estate system so simple to use and understand that people and businesses can handle a lot of housing and land issues on their own. Government officials should have an incentive to make documents easier for us to locate and understand, and engineers should have an incentive to make their products more compatible and easier to repair and recycle. People should be rewarded for figuring out how to increase the efficiency of society to such an extent that they can put themselves, or other people, out of work.

The concepts that I'm describing for our legal system apply to firefighters, policemen, engineers, and other people. Firefighters have been caught setting fires so often that the National Volunteer Fire Council has a PDF report specifically about arson by firefighters. Some firefighters set fires simply because of a psychological disorder, but some are doing it for financial benefits. We need to change the economic system so that nobody can profit from fires, or any other disaster.

The leaders of the fire departments should do more than supervise the extinguishing of fires. They should analyze fires and try to determine their causes. However, they should not focus on a narrow sliver of time. They should look at all of the events that led up to the fire. By understanding the cause, they can suggest changes to society to reduce fires, such as changing the design of buildings, or the manner in which wiring is located in a building, or the materials that we use.

The people in leadership positions, regardless of whether they are supervising the legal system, fire department, manufacturing, or transportation, should be analyzing problems and looking for ways to reduce the quantity and severity of the problems. Our problems should be decreasing each year as a result of their efforts. If problems increase, the leaders need to be replaced.We must stop feeling sorry for leaders who fail to bring improvements to society. We must regularly pass judgment on who are the worst performing leaders, and regularly replace them so that somebody else can have a chance.

The idea that government officials can bring continuous improvements to life might seem ridiculous, but look at businesses. Scientists, engineers, and managers are continuously finding improvements, which is why we are enjoying endless technical progress. If those type of people were put into leadership positions of society, they would certainly be able to bring improvements to society.

We have no social progress right now for several reasons, such as the primitive attitude that it is "unpatriotic" to experiment with changes, and because our governments, legal system, schools, banks, and media are dominated by criminals, freaks, and psychos.

Who is most harmed by my mistakes?

It is possible that some of the people that I have complained about are actually honest people, and that I misinterpreted their intentions, but what difference does it make if I made a mistake in my analysis of them? How are they harmed by my mistakes? If they are honest, they can offer evidence of that. I am not stopping anybody from defending himself. Leon can post his own version of his relationship with me, and he can deny that he ever subscribed to a pornography website. I am not stopping him from defending himself, or showing the world where he believes I have made mistakes. I am not stopping him from getting a job, starting a business, getting married, moving to another city, painting pictures, learning carpentry, practicing yoga, or anything else. He is free to do what he wants. So why should I feel guilty?

If a few paragraphs on my website can ruin a person's life, and if that person has an equal opportunity to defend himself, then it would be an indication that what I have said is the truth. It is an indication that people read my remarks, listened to the person's defense, and then came to the conclusion that I am correct.

Conversely, if people read what I have written about a person, and then read that person's rebuttal, and then come to the conclusion that I am making idiotic remarks, then people will lose respect for me, and they will continue to respect the person that I wrote about. In that case, my website will hurt me, not the person I wrote about.

Leon claims that I am hurting his reputation, but I will hurt my own reputation if he can offer evidence that my remarks about him are inaccurate, idiotic, or deceptive. The material on my website affects my reputation more than it affects Leon's reputation. To rephrase that, if I produce idiotic, deceptive, or stupid documents, I am going to hurt myself more than I hurt anybody else.

The reason this is true is because our reputation is entirely dependent upon us, not other people. Leon's reputation is due entirely on what he does and says, not what other people say about him. My reputation is entirely due to what I say and do, not what other people say about me. As long as a person has an equal opportunity to defend himself, he is responsible for his reputation. Nobody can ruin your reputation if you have an equal opportunity to defend yourself.

Furthermore, I would say that none of the people I write about have a valid complaint against my website because I am not complaining about "ordinary" people. I do not criticize people at random, and I am not criticizing people who have treated me with decency. I have made critical remarks only about people who have contacted me, and of those people, only those who have behaved in what I consider a suspicious manner, such as sending me hundreds of messages and phone calls in an attempt to convince me that the Bollyn family is free. Furthermore, as I mentioned before, I don't write about them to hurt them. I write about them to let people know what I have been experiencing during the past 12 years as a result of trying to expose their behavior so that other people can watch for people who do the same to them.

Leon and many other people have been sending me hundreds of messages and phone calls. Some people patrol my neighborhood, and some pester my relatives and other people that I come into contact with, including doctors and dentists. I would respond that if I write about any of those people, it is their own tough luck if they don't like what I say about them. They chose to push their way into my life and try to manipulate me or the people I come into contact with. I never asked for them. If they don't like what I say about them, then they can defend themselves rather than whine for censorship.

Why should Leon, his lawyer, or anybody else have the right to censor information that I want to provide to you? Unless they can show that my material is harmful to society, then they are simply censoring the information that they don't like. Why should anybody be provided with the privilege to censor information that they personally don't care for?

The intent of my articles is to help people understand the crimes that are occurring, avoid becoming a victim of the criminals, and encourage people to get involved with society and do something to improve our living conditions. I would describe my articles as educational; as a description of the lessons I have learned from trying to expose the Jewish involvement in the 9/11 attack. It could be described as part of the adventure of my life, or as part of my biography. Before a lawyer or judge should be allowed to censor my documents, he should be able to offer intelligent evidence that censoring my documents will help society. If he cannot provide such evidence, he should be told to shut up.

If you don't get involved with these issues, then you are allowing Leon, his lawyer, and other people to make the decisions for you. Don't be a frightened rabbit. Get involved with the future of your life and the future of the human race.

Incidentally, some of the people that I have criticized contact me even when I tell them to stop it, and even when they don't like what I say about them. Peggy, for example, is still sending me occasional email messages, and she still occasionally calls me on the telephone. She called me late one evening in June 2013, and I hung up. The phone rang a few seconds later, and I assumed it was her, so I didn't answer it. She left this idiotic message on my answering machine. She says: "Help me please! There's nothing I can do."
Peggy-message-June-2013.mp3

How many men can resist the Damsel in Distress trick?

Note that she is whispering in the message. She frequently whispers when she calls me, and I wonder if it is because she is trying to create the impression that she is a "Damsel in Distress". Perhaps she is hoping that my emotional craving to help and protect women will be triggered by the sound of a frightened, whispering woman. Or is she whispering because her son or husband is nearby, and she's trying to make the phone call without letting them realize who she is calling?

A few days later, Peggy called once again, and whispered something, and I hung up as soon as I realized it was her. On 10 July 2013, she called again, and I hung up as soon as I realized it was her. She has been calling me continuously for years. When is this going to stop?

Who benefits if lawyers tell me that I must censor some of the information that I'm writing about these people? I think it is important for you to realize what I go through. If we could remove the secrecy that we are providing people and analyze everybody, we might discover that the people who tried to expose Jerry Sandusky were also being contacted by similar people and subjected to a similar treatment.

I don't think I am the only person who is being subjected to this treatment. These criminals may be irritating, intimidating, frightening, and suppressing a lot of people who are trying to expose crimes. We need to help people understand how these criminals are operating; how they intimidate people; and how they get away with their crimes. We need to expose and stop the crimes, not help the criminals suppress us.

It doesn't matter if we violate laws

It is important to note that even if there is something on my website that is violating a law, that doesn't mean I should censor the information, be fined, or sent to jail. We should consider whether it would be more sensible to alter the law. All laws are arbitrary, personal opinions, and they change continuously. Laws regarding social issues should not be regarded as mathematical rules that have a definite right or wrong. A society should routinely analyze laws and pass judgment on whether any of them need to be updated or discarded. People are fools to mindlessly follow laws. We have to occasionally alter our laws to fit the changes in technology and society.

If Leon's lawyer can show evidence that something on my website is violating a law, and if I can show that society would benefit even more by altering that law, then the American people should have the sense to tell the lawyers to change the law. We should not let lawyers force us to follow laws that either no longer apply, or which should be improved upon.

In America and Europe, lawyers sometimes respond that it doesn't matter what the truth is or whether people benefit from something. They insist that we must follow the law regardless of how idiotic it may appear. They use this crazy argument in order to justify laws against Holocaust denial, assisted suicide, and euthanasia. For example, if a person is begging for assisted suicide, and if a doctor provides him with the service, the lawyers will respond that the doctor is guilty of murder even though there was no victim, and even though the person he killed was having a miserable life which was going to end soon anyway, and was publicly begging for an early death.

In Europe the lawyers are justifying laws against "Holocaust denial" through similar idiotic arguments. The European courts don't care about the truth or the benefit to society. They are forcing people to follow laws even if the laws are senseless. Actually, the lawyers don't have to "force" the Europeans to follow Holocaust denial laws. Most of the people on the planet are such mindless, apathetic sheep that they follow senseless laws without any pressure. Most people are so easy to manipulate and so tolerant of abuse that small crime networks can manipulate entire nations.

Laws are personal opinions, so there is nothing right or wrong with laws against assisted suicide or Holocaust denial. However, we should analyze laws according to their advantages and disadvantages to society, rather than according to what Jesus might do, or what our ancestors have been doing. What are the benefits to society of Holocaust denial laws? What are the benefits and disadvantages to laws that prohibit assisted suicide? These are the type of discussions that our legal system should be having. If we cannot show that the benefits of a law outweigh its disadvantages, then we are foolish to follow it.

Does anybody have the right to secrecy?

Leon is upset that I mentioned that he subscribes to a pornography site, and some people would say that I should not disclose such personal or private information. This brings up a very important issue that you ought to get involved with. Specifically, do people have the right to keep secrets from us about how they live and what they do? Or do we have the right to know the details about the people we are living with? Does an employee have the right to hide his drug use, alcohol use, gambling habits, or criminal history from his employer and from his coworkers? Or do we have the right to know the details of the people we are working with? Does a woman have the right to know the personal details of a man she is thinking of marrying, or does he have the right to keep secrets and deceive her?

If Leon is embarrassed or ashamed of what he does, that is his problem, not mine. Besides, he told me that he subscribes to pornography websites, so if he truly wanted to keep it a secret, he would not have told me. He may have told other people, also.

Furthermore, the idea that we are hurting somebody by telling other people that they look at pornography becomes especially ridiculous when you consider that forms of pornography are all over our society. Our movies, advertisements, calendars, and television shows are full of what I would describe as "toilet humor" and "mild pornography". If Leon told me that he enjoys watching the pretty girls on a television show, would I be disclosing "embarrassing" or "personal" information about him? I don't think so. I think all heterosexual men are titillated by that material. I suspect that most men would lose interest in a lot of television shows if it were not for the pretty women.

The majority of men may not subscribe to pornographic websites or magazines, but is there any man who has never looked at pornography or enjoyed the mild pornography on television? If so, are those men "normal"? I don't think we are helping ourselves by encouraging men to put on a phony image of what they are. I think we should be more open and honest about ourselves. We are animals, and we should face this fact and try to understand ourselves.

Women enjoy looking at babies, but we don't ridicule them for it. We don't describe women as looking at "pornography" when they titillate themselves with babies. What is the difference between a woman who is titillated by a baby, and a man who is titillated by a woman? I don't think there is much of a difference.

I don't think there is a dividing line between men and women. Our bodies are built according to the same blueprint, but there are subtle differences in the manner in which our parts develop. I think our brains are also built according to the same blueprint. However, different parts of our brain develop slightly differently. The emotion that causes a woman to be attracted to a baby seems to be the same emotion that a man has, except that in a man, it is directed towards women.

I think women will get a better understanding of men if they can consider that a man's attraction to a woman is very similar to their attraction to a baby. Women enjoy looking at babies, smelling babies, and playing with babies. Women want to touch babies and hug babies. Women want to show their babies to other women. I think that men have the same emotional cravings, but it is directed towards adult women instead of babies. The main difference between us is that when we start touching and smelling women, we may become sexually titillated. A woman could understand the difference between us if she imagines herself touching and playing with a baby and suddenly finding herself becoming sexually attracted to the baby.

I have the impression that many women believe that the reason men want to look at them and touch them is because of our sexual cravings, but I don't think that is true. I think the emotion that causes us to enjoy looking at and touching women is the same emotion that women have that causes them to want to look at and touch babies. It is not our sexual emotions that causes us to enjoy women. Our sexual emotion is very crude and "stupid". It doesn't care what we have sex with. Men can be sexually satisfied with animals, watermelons, robots, other men, or inflatable dolls. I think that if we could remove the sexual emotions from a man's brain, he would continue to enjoy looking at pretty women and still have a craving to touch them.

Since there is only one blueprint for a human mind, it is conceivable that the portion of our brain that gives women a strong attraction to children accidentally develops too much in a man. This will cause him to have us abnormally strong desire to look at, touch, hug, and kiss children. He would not have a sexual attraction to children, but a man's penis is "stupid", so it will response to virtually anything that is soft and warm. Therefore, even though his attraction to children would be the same, harmless attraction that women have, if he doesn't have good control over his sexual cravings, he could become what we refer to as a "pedophile".

Leon is not unusual for enjoying pornography, but he may be unusual for subscribing to a pornographic website while he was so low on money that he was sharing an apartment. Should he be able to keep that type of information a secret from his roommates, employers, potential spouse, or his own children? I don't think so. I think it would be much more sensible to bring all of these issues out in the open and stop encouraging people to deceive us. We need to understand the human mind and look for ways to improve society, not encourage people to deceive one another.

If a person who is extremely low on money spends some of his money on drugs, alcohol, or gambling, should he be able to keep that a secret, also? We could say that such behavior is a symptom of a potential emotional problem. And we could say that we have a right to know the potential problems of the people we live with and might want as a spouse.

We are not going to understand the human mind when we allow people to hide their qualities and create false images of themselves. We need to remove the secrecy, tell people to deal with their embarrassment, and let scientists study the human mind.

I suppose some lawyers would say that I have no right to let people listen to the phone calls that Leon made to me because they are private and personal. However, I don't consider them to be private or personal. I consider them to be necessary to understand the conflict between me and Leon. Unfortunately, I didn't bother to record Leon's phone calls until he started irritating me with his insistence that the Bollyn family was free, and I only recorded some of them.

I won't bother posting any of the phone calls yet, except for one excerpt. I'll wait to find out if the lawyer or Leon wants me to post them all. I'll just describe some aspects of the phone calls that I think are important to the public.

The reason I will post one excerpt is because it shows a particular characteristic of Leon; namely, that he would frequently bring up sexual issues in conversations that had nothing to do with sex. An example is this excerpt from his phone call to me on 17 August 2009 in which he is telling me about an email message from Christopher Bollyn. Leon was trying to once again convince me that the Bollyns are not kidnapped. In this conversation, he asked me why Daryl Smith and Christopher Bollyn no longer like one another. I told him that I don't know, and I asked him why everybody expects me to explain everybody else. He continued to push me into explaining why Smith doesn't like Bollyn, and so I asked him, "What if somebody asks me what you're doing?" I was trying to make him realize that I cannot explain other people, but he responded, "Well you tell them that I teach yoga, and I jack off myself and watch porn." I then asked him, "What if they ask why?" I assumed that he would understand my point that I cannot explain somebody else, but he continued talking about how he enjoys pornography.
Leon-17-August-2009.mp3   300 kbytes

A few months before that phone call, on 5 and 6 May 2009, I posted my FAQ document in which I wrote that more evidence that Christopher Bollyn has been kidnapped is that he recently promoted Brandon Schaefer. A couple days later, 8 May 2009, Leon called me at least six times because I have six recordings from that day.

Leon told me about his phone call with Brandon Schaefer, and he forwarded one of Schaefer's email messages to me so that I could read it, and he read the message over the phone after I finished reading it. The purpose of his phone calls was to convince me that Brandon Schaefer can be trusted, and that Bollyn was not kidnapped, and that the reason Bollyn was promoting Schaefer's article was because Bollyn was simply trying to help an honest young man.

Schaefer was obviously in contact with Leon, and the two of them were working together to manipulate my opinions. Who else was Schaefer in contact with? Who else was Leon in contact with? If we could observe those two, we would be able to identify other people in the crime network.

It is important to note that Leon brought up the topic of circumcision in two of the six conversations on that day, even though it had nothing to do with the topic of the conversation. For example, when I asked Leon why Schaefer is worrying so much about what I say about him, Leon responded in a joking manner, "Maybe uncircumcised men worry too much."

Leon would frequently bring up the topic of circumcision with me, and I was not the only person that he did this with. He seemed to know whether everybody else was circumcised or not, apparently because he brought the issue up with everybody and would ask them if they were circumcised. He is a database of circumcision data. Some people might say that he has an obsession with circumcision.

As I wrote in the file that Leon is complaining about, when he was the manager of an apartment building and accused of making sexual advances, he told me that all he was doing was having an innocent conversation about circumcision. It is possible that he was indeed having an innocent conversation, but that the boy and his mother misinterpreted his motives, which is understandable since it is unusual for an older man to bring up the issue with teenage boys that he doesn't know very well.

Another more important issue I want to bring to your attention is that during the last of the six phone calls of that day, after Leon told me that he was going to tell Schaefer that I didn't mean him any harm, I responded, "Yeah, tell him that he worries too much." I then thought of Leon's circumcision joke, so I told Leon, "Tell him that maybe it's because he needs to get circumcised. Tell him your theory that it's these uncircumcised people who worry too much."

Leon giggled at my joke, and then said, "You're terrible! Your horrible, dude. I'm going to send you to Guantanamo Bay and get you some therapy." While he was making those remarks, I had to interrupt him and tell him that it was his theory that the uncircumcised people worry too much. I had to repeat it several times to him. I had to tell him that I was "quoting Leon", and he finally said, "OK, whatever."

I don't think Leon had forgotten that in an earlier conversation that day he had made that joke. I think he was using a trick that I have seen with other people who have contacted me. I also suspect that Jews used a variation of this trick with Kanye West. There are lots of variations for this trick, so you must be able to understand the basic concept and then figure out when somebody is using a variation of it on you.

A summary of the trick is:
1) Somebody will have an ordinary conversation with you, but they look for ways to bring up issues that could become embarrassing to you or illegal.
2) If they can trick you into making embarrassing or illegal comments, then they can tell other people what you said, or play them a recording if they secretly recorded the conversation, and they can try to hurt your image or your relationships.

In the case of my conversation with Leon, I didn't say anything very embarrassing, but if I had not stood up to Leon, then he could have continued making it appear as if he was shocked by my rude comments, and he could have told Shafer that I was making a rude joke that he should get circumcised so that he doesn't worry so much, and then Shafer could have complained on his website that I was making rude remarks about him needing a circumcision. That is not very embarrassing, but the Jews have not been able to find anything to tarnish my image, so I suspect some of them would have grabbed that opportunity even though it wasn't of much value.

I suspect that the Jews used this trick with Kanye West. I think they started what appeared to be ordinary conversations about Beyonce's amazing music videos, and that she deserves the award, but if she doesn't get an award, it is certainly because of racism. One of the Jews might then reply, "Yeah, I'm so fed up with these racists that if they give the award to Taylor Swift, I have half a mind to run up on the stage, take it away from her, and give it to Beyonce!"

Everybody would laugh, making it appear as a joke. By continuing those conversations day after day, I suppose they eventually caused Kanye West to fantasize about doing it, and perhaps one day he made a remark about how he'd love to do such a thing. The Jews would then encourage the behavior with such remarks as, "Really? Would you do that? That would be like, so awesome, dude!" They would also try to make it appear as if it was entirely his idea to do it, not their idea. They may have also brought in photographers and journalists who promised to give him publicity for it. I also suppose that at least one of the Jews would caution him that such a stunt might cause trouble. By making such a statement, the Jews would be able to later say, "Kanye, you fool. Irving warned you about doing that stunt, but you wouldn't listen your good Jewish friend who loves you and was trying to protect you." Kanye would then be more trusting of Irving, which would make it easy for Irving to set him up for something else.

The Jews would also regularly praise Kanye in order to keep him arrogant because when men become arrogant, they don't look critically at themselves. The best way to ruin a man is to praise him. And the best way to make a man do something he would normally not do is to make him angry. Angry, arrogant men are crazed animals, not rational humans. So in the days prior to the award ceremony, and throughout that day, the Jews would provide Kanye with both praise and reminders of racism.

Kanye West is remaining silent about what inspired him to do that stunt, but he would do the world a favor by describing what led up to it. The Jews are very successful at manipulating people, and he could help people to understand this trick, as well as expose some of the people who did it. If he is afraid to talk about it publicly, he should spread the information quietly in private. We need more people to become aware of this trick and watch out for it.

This trick is especially useful in causing fights between different races or political groups. Because humans are tribal, we are biased in favor of the people who are similar to us, and critical of everybody who is different. This makes it very easy for the Jews to trick people into making critical remarks about other religions, nations, races, and political groups. Since men and women frequently annoy one another, it is also very easy to get men and women to make critical remarks about one another, even about their own spouse. By recording the critical remarks that people make, the Jews can blackmail people, or they can secretly play the critical remarks to other people in order to cause divorces; get a person fired; or cause trouble for him in some other manner.

The Jews can go to a black person with a secret recording and say, "Did you know that Paula Dean made a remark about niggers? You should not tolerate this racism. How can you enjoy life when these creepy-ass crackers are calling you niggers?"

The Jews can go to a white person, and tell them, "Did you know that Trayvon Martin calls white people 'creepy-ass crackers'? You should become angry! You should hate those niggers!"

We are never going to figure out how to reduce crime, fights between men and women, racial problems, or other issues until we start understanding all of the factors that are causing these problems to occur. Lawyers want us to focus on one tiny sliver of a person's life, but we need to look at the person's entire life, and his interactions with other people, and all of the factors that influenced his behavior.

We need to understand why people are doing what they are doing, and how society and other people are affecting them. With that type of information, we can alter society to provide children with a more appropriate environment, and we can make changes to businesses to provide employees with more appropriate working conditions, and we can alter our social activities to be more pleasant and encourage more cooperation. Acquiring this type of information requires that we design a legal system that has access to information about our lives, and which analyzes the information according to what is best for society.

In order to truly understand the dispute between me and Leon, we have to do more than look at the remarks on my website that Leon is complaining about. We need to look into why Leon was contacting me in the first place, and why he was working with Schaefer to change my opinion. Leon and Schaefer were working together as a team for a while to manipulate me. Why should I not be free to describe my experiences with these people?

Americas "Feel sorry for me" attitude is allowing people who are stupid, retarded, and mentally ill to get special treatment on the grounds that we should feel sorry for them. As a result of this policy, when people are accused of crimes, many people will fake ignorance or stupidity. If a person is obviously educated or intelligent, then the courts provide him with the option of claiming to have suffered from "temporary insanity".

An example is happening right now, July 2013. Shannon Richardson has admitted to mailing letters with ricin to President Obama and other government officials, but her lawyer is claiming that the government must prove Richardson had "the requisite mental state" to make her actions a crime. Her lawyer is also implying that her mental state is being affected by the fact that she's pregnant while being held in jail.

A two-year-old child does not have the intellectual ability to understand crimes or control his emotions, and so we must set lower standards of behavior for young children. We must pamper children, give them special privileges, and be more tolerant of their whining and crude behavior. However, we are under no obligation to give teenagers or adults any special privileges.

Or, if we are going to allow some adults to claim that they deserve special treatment because they are mentally incompetent, then we should treat them like children. Specifically, we should restrict their privileges to have children, vote, drink alcohol, and influence the economy.

Furthermore, and even more important, we don't have to obey the demands of any lawyer. For example, Shannon Richardson's lawyer is demanding that we prove that she was in some type of mental state, but a legal system should analyze Richardson's case according to what is best for society. Don't let a lawyer switch your attention from society to some narrow topic, such as Richardson's possible mental disorder.

The lawyers and other people who work in the legal system should be considered as employees who are doing a job, not as dictators. We don't owe them anything. They must earn our respect by making intelligent remarks and doing something useful for society. If they make stupid remarks or senseless demands, we should reprimand them, fire them, and in extreme cases, evict them from society.

Unfortunately, our lawyers and judges are not treated as "employees". We have no ability to fire any of them. They are virtually untouchable. Nobody gives them a performance review. They can do and say anything they please, with no consequences. They can charge any amount of money without anybody complaining. They can help criminals become free even when they are fully aware that the person is guilty, and nobody can charge them as being an accessory to the crime for helping a person that they know is guilty.

This brings me to an issue that I have repeatedly mentioned; namely, a society is only as good as its members. If the majority of people cannot understand the concept that a legal system should do what is best for society rather than focus on narrow issues or brief moments of time, or if the majority of people are too apathetic to care, then we will continue suffering from a legal system that allows crime networks to run rampant. It is important for you to get involved with society, and help locate other people who are willing to get involved. We cannot stop abuse unless we can find enough people who are willing to stand up to it.

Where did Shannon Richardson get ricin?

The castor bean plant grows wild where I live. We can easily collect the seeds, but how do we extract the ricin? The Wikipedia says that ricin can be isolated from seeds by "chromatographic techniques". A stupid person, or a very young child, would not be able to do it. It requires a certain amount of intelligence, and the ability to educate yourself on the techniques.

The police ought to be investigating the source of her ricin. Is she working for a crime network? And if so, did they give her the ricin? Or did she figure out how to purify ricin by herself, and if so, did she do all of the work by herself?

Richardson's lawyer is implying that she is suffering from some mental condition, but even if scientists were capable of analyzing her brain and determining with 100% certainty that she is mentally ill, we are under no obligation to give her special legal privileges. Businesses do not provide special privileges to mentally defective employees who abuse other employees or steal from the business. Businesses fire people who are destructive, even if those people are stupid or mentally ill. Businesses do not even tolerate parasitic employees who show up to work but don't actually contribute any useful work. Businesses insist that every employee regularly contribute something of value to the organization. Businesses want team members, not parasites or criminals.

The policy that businesses follow can be applied to an entire society. When we begin creating new cities, we can demand that every adult in a city contribute to it in some manner, and we can evict those who are destructive or parasitic. We don't have to tolerate parasites, criminals, homeless people, anti-social people, or illegal residents. We also don't have to tolerate wealthy people, or their wealthy children, or their wealthy ex-spouse.

We need to set standards for the Internet

We don't have to give mentally incompetent people any special legal privileges in regards to the issue of libel, either. For example, some people accuse Dick Cheney of steering hurricane Katrina into New Orleans, and this article claims that Obama steered hurricane Sandy.

There are also lots of people posting theories that the government is spraying us with "chemtrails", hiding UFO information, and building secret prison camps to torture, rape, and kill us. As I mentioned here, Alex Jones has accused Angelina Jolie being at the "heart" of wars. Why are so many people allowed to make idiotic accusations about government officials and Angelina Jolie?

Some accusations against the CIA are so absurd that they are amusing. For example, in this article about why the CIA has a large office building in Denver, we find such amusing speculations as:

we have to ask ourselves "WHY?"....
If they intend to flood the east coast as has been suggested ....
OR Is this about the incoming twin star and Nibiru that may also cause flooding or drop off visitors ....
I finally got someone to tell me that Denver and Colorado is going to be the new capital of the Satanic NWO and they are going to blow the atlantic plate to move britain over to connect with the USA and that way they can control us directly....

Our lawyers and judges do not consider any of those idiotic accusations to be "libel". Instead, our courts consider them to be the harmless ramblings of people who are stupid, uneducated, or psychotic. This “feel sorry for the loser” attitude is allowing people to create thousands of Internet pages and videos of idiotic accusations.

Why should idiots, psychos, and uneducated people have the special privilege of being able to publish idiotic accusations? To complicate this issue, I don't think any of the people making those accusations are actually idiots, or believe their stupid theories. Alfred Webre, for example, is above average intelligence according to almost everybody's standards, but he has such stupid videos as this one in which he implies that the recent floods in Calgary, Canada were the result of "weather warfare". We have the ability to have a subtle influence on the weather, such as by spraying clouds with something that initiates rain, but he implies that some mysterious group of people have secretly developed the technology to control the weather to such an extent that they can use it as a military weapon, and that they are attacking Canada.

I think Alfred Webre, Alex Jones, and all of the other people making these stupid accusations are working for a crime network, and that they are deliberately creating propaganda for various reasons, such as to give conspiracy theories a bad image, and to fill the Internet with so many idiotic theories that people are less likely to notice that some conspiracy theories are sensible.

Our attitude of feeling sorry for the stupid and psychotic people is allowing criminals to pose as idiots, and that allows them to fill the Internet with thousands of stupid accusations. We are inadvertently assisting crime networks by feeling sorry for losers.

Since I don't actually know Alex Jones or Alfred Webre, it is possible that one or both are truly suffering from some mental disorder rather than being members of a crime network, but regardless of why they make their idiotic accusations, we should not tolerate their remarks. They have no sensible evidence for what they are saying. Businesses do not tolerate employees who promote idiotic accusations, and no society has to tolerate it, either.

Imagine if businesses were to promote the same “feel sorry for the Underdog” attitude that American society promotes. Imagine a business in which the employees are allowed to post documents on the company's website and pass around newsletters in which they accuse the management of such idiotic crimes as steering hurricanes into New Orleans, spraying the employees with chemtrails, and building secret prison camps to torture and kill the employees. Imagine the other employees and management tolerating such idiotic accusations on the grounds that the people making the accusations are stupid or psychotic.

When we do not have standards for documents, we allow children, retards, and psychos to produce nonsensical documents. Crime networks benefit from this chaos because it allows them to produce a phenomenal number of books, videos, and documents about their crimes. They pretend to be honest investigators, and each of them creates a slightly different theory. The end result is that the public is exposed to thousands of different theories to explain the 9/11 attack, the JFK assassination, the world wars, and other crimes, and this makes it difficult for us to figure out which information is accurate, which is an honest mistake, and which is propaganda.

If we develop a legal system that operates like a Quality Control Department, the lawyers could discuss such issues as, "What are the advantages and disadvantages to society for allowing the material produced by Eric Hufschmid, Alfred Webre, and Alex Jones, and what would be the advantages and disadvantages to censoring those materials?" They would come to the conclusion that there is no benefit to censoring any of my information but there is a significant benefit to arresting Jones and Webre and clearing the Internet of all of their idiotic propaganda.

Is John Lear telling the truth?

In this interview, John Lear discusses such issues as how Israel was responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy. He is just one of thousands of people who has put his opinions out into the public. There are thousands of television documentaries, books, movies, Internet documents, and Internet videos about the JFK assassination. All of them promote a slightly different theory.

John Lear promoted UFOs and other idiotic theories for years, and that video is an interview by Project Camelot, which regularly puts out propaganda. Since he has been working with people who put out propaganda, we have to wonder if his theory on the JFK killing is just another mixture of propaganda and truth, or if he is exposing some truth because he no longer wants to work with the crime network and is secretly hoping to destroy them, or whether he is exposing only the information that many people already suspect in an attempt to attract attention to him and away from other crime factions and away from people like me.

We don't have to live in a world in which we wonder if a document is an honest mistake from an idiot or an uneducated person, or whether it is propaganda from a crime network. We can easily set standards for television documentaries, Internet documents, and videos.

We can also remove copyrights and encourage all documents to be improved upon. We can demand that every author provide supporting evidence for his remarks, and if an author cannot adequately support a remark, it would be censored. If we come to the conclusion that an author has been deliberately lying, he should be classified as a criminal. We should not tolerate propaganda.

If we had total surveillance of the entire planet, we would discover that everybody regularly gets into disputes. Employees get into disputes with one another, their customers, and their bosses; husbands and wives get into disputes; business executives and government officials get into disputes over contracts; and neighbors get into disputes.

Most disputes are brief and never result in any violence, and as a result, we have a tendency to forget about them. If we had a database with video and descriptions of every dispute that everybody has been in, I suspect that we would be surprised at how many arguments we get into. I think that type of database would also show us that children have many more disputes than adults. We might find that the typical person has tens of thousands of disputes during his life.

There are no dividing lines in this universe. Every issue blends into another issue. We cannot divide the world into criminals and honest people. We cannot say that some people get into arguments, and some people don't. There are only subtle differences between us.

If we could analyze everybody's life, we would find that everybody gets into arguments. The difference between us is how often we get into arguments, which issues we argue about, and how we behave during the arguments. Some people do more yelling, some people are more likely to use insults, some people do more kicking, and some people glare more often. Men are more likely to get into fistfights; women seem to be more likely to scratch and pull hair; and children seem more likely to cry and throw objects.

Our legal system should be designed to study and understand the crimes and disputes that we get into, and it should be doing so for the purpose of trying to figure out how to alter society to reduce these troubles. Our legal system should be offering suggestions on how we can experiment with job conditions, business contracts, social affairs, apartments, recreational activities, and schools, in order to reduce the number of conflicts and crimes.

A database of crimes and disputes would also be useful for the "ordinary" people. We would be able to look through our own life to get a better understanding of our personality, and how we might be able to improve our life. It would also help us make decisions about who we want as a friend, spouse, or employee, and who deserves a particular position of leadership.

This database would show us that some people get into fights more than others, and some people's fights are much more violent and long-lasting. It would also show us that some people get into certain types of fights, and other people tend to get involved in other types of fights. We would notice that some people spend more time whining about other people, and some people make more false accusations.

This type of database would also help us determine if some people need restrictions, such as preventing them from working with children, or having access to certain areas of the city, or getting certain jobs.

This type of database would have an effect on a person's reputation. The people who develop a bad reputation might complain that the database is interfering with their relationships, jobs, and life, but we should not deny ourselves this information simply to appease those people. This type of information was publicly available during prehistoric times, and it helped our ancestors choose friends and a spouse. For example, if one of our prehistoric ancestors was frequently getting into arguments, or making idiotic accusations about other people, or having trouble forming stable friendships or marriages, everybody else in his tribe would know about it. He would not be able to keep his fights and idiotic accusations a secret. He would develop a reputation for having a bad temper, or for being antisocial, or for being weird. His bad reputation would affect his life.

During prehistoric times, everybody was responsible for their reputation, but today we provide people with so much secrecy that they can hide their criminal background, bankruptcies, failed marriages, gambling problems, drug problems, and temper tantrums.

Businesses are regularly looking at people's backgrounds and passing judgment on whether they want them as an employee, and what type of job would be appropriate for them, but we don't have access to much information about people, so we have to make these decisions based on a small amount of information. It would be better to collect a lot of data on everybody and make it available to the public so that we can do a better job of passing judgment on one another.

Don't be intimidated by people who complain that they have the right to keep their undesirable characteristics a secret. You should demand that you have a right to know the qualities of the people you live with.

Nobody should benefit financially from problems

In the American legal system, victims of crimes can benefit financially by demanding phenomenal amounts of money to compensate for their suffering. Their lawyers also benefit financially. I don't think a court system should allow anybody to profit from any type of dispute. All disputes and crimes should be considered as an unfortunate aspect of modern society, and our goal should be to understand and reduce these problems, not profit from them. A legal system should not allow people or businesses to demand financial or other compensation.

If a doctor makes a mistake and hurts a patient, the legal system should try to figure out if there is a way to reduce similar problems in the future, such as by changing medical procedures or training courses. We benefit by learning from mistakes, not by allowing victims to acquire phenomenal material wealth. Society should take care of people who are victims of accidents, but the philosophy that we can compensate a victim with material wealth is ridiculous. Our emotional craving for material items is fooling us into believing that material wealth is the source of happiness, but I suggest we stop promoting such a crude attitude.

When our legal system has to deal with crimes that are much more destructive, such as burglary, rape, and murder, then in addition to learning from the crime, our courts should also pass judgment on whether any of the people involved are displaying such undesirable qualities that they need to be restricted from certain jobs, areas of the city, or activities, or whether they are so destructive that they should be evicted from society. I don't see any point in punishing these people, or in rewarding their victims with material wealth.

The media is trying to incite racial fights

I didn't pay much attention to the trial of George Zimmerman, but the brief excerpts that I saw made it look like an attempt to stimulate emotions rather than an intelligent analysis of a crime. That trial made no attempt to understand why the killing occurred, or whether we can learn any lessons to help us reduce these type of problems in the future. The lawyers argued over whether Zimmerman can be blamed for the killing, and if so, what his punishment will be. The jury decided that he was not guilty of any crime, but no matter what the jury had decided, the trial was a waste of time and money. No lessons were learned, no future crimes will be prevented, and nobody's life will improve in any way.

Our media has no interest in understanding this case, either. My impression of the news reports is that the media was trying to exploit Martin's death in order to incite racial fights. For example, People magazine described his death is an "American tragedy". Also, their preferred photograph of Martin is when he was a child, not a more recent photo. There are not many recent photos of Martin, but I don't think our media wants a recent photo. I think they are trying to create the impression that a child has been murdered.

	Our media is not providing us with serious descriptions of the killing. They are trying to manipulate us with "heartbreaking details" of "American tragedies".		If the media was using Martin's baby photos, would that be obvious enough to cause the American sheeple to realize that they are being manipulated?
		The real tragedy in America is that the sheeple are allowing the media, lawyers, government, Israelis, and other groups, to abuse them.

Don't dismiss a journalist's selection of a photo as irrelevant or a coincidence. If we had total surveillance of the planet, and if we were to observe the journalists as they write articles, we would find that they regularly look through a lot of photos before selecting one for publication. In regards to photos of Martin and Zimmerman, they are deliberately choosing to publish photos that make Martin look young, small, harmless, and innocent. How obvious does the abuse by the media have to be before the majority of Americans are willing to do something to stop the abuse? What if they used photos of Martin as a baby?

Who is responsible for creating the email message that this man is Trayvon Martin?

On 3 July 2013, my mother received an email message with the photo of the black man to the right, and it was claiming that this is a more recent photo of Martin. The subject of the email message was:
Recognize this guy? No. You will recognize the photo at the very end

The text of the email message was completely lacking punctuation and capitalization:
someone sent this to me and I was shocked

My mother foolishly believed it was true, and so she forwarded it to a lot of other people, including me. She receives a lot of messages that follow a particular pattern. First of all, there is no source of where the information comes from, such as by claiming that the information comes from "somebody". Second, the messages often lack proper capitalization or punctuation. Third, the messages stimulate emotions of anger, usually towards Muslims, but in this case a black man. I would not be surprised if black people were getting similar messages, but to create anger towards Zimmerman and white people.

If our legal system was a Quality Control Department that was truly interested in understanding and reducing social problems, they would investigate the source of these messages. I think we would discover that most of them are coming from an organized group of Jews who are trying to manipulate our opinions and instigate fights. I suspect that the reason their punctuation a sloppy is because they have a lot of messages to send, and their management is looking at the quantity of messages they send rather than the quality.

Those email messages are detrimental to society because they incite anger. They do not incite discussions, research, or pleasant feelings. The people creating these messages could be described as "criminals" who are hurting the morale of society. Society would be justified in arresting the people who initiate these messages. We should not let them get away by claiming stupidity or ignorance, either.

No business would tolerate employees who use the company's email system to send anonymous messages that are intended to incite hatred between the employees. No society has to tolerate it either.

The anonymous email messages are another example of how secrecy helps criminals, not honest people. If our legal system could access all email messages, they would be able to figure out who is creating these messages, and why. If a person is creating these messages because of mental disorders or ignorance, we should put restrictions on him, such as allowing him to receive email and reply to email, but not create or send original messages of his own. If a person is creating propaganda for a crime network, then he should be considered a threat to society, and he should be sent to the City of Misfits where there is no Internet access, telephones, or other communication technology.

Some people would be frightened at the thought of a legal system that can access their personal email messages, but what harm would it do to us? When a crime occurred, the government software and personnel would scan through the archive of messages for certain topics, but they would find nothing of value in most of our messages. None of us would be harmed.

Perhaps a less frightening way to look at the issue of surveillance by the government is that if we can create a city with virtually no crime, and if we can create a government of honest people, then all of the email messages, security camera video, and other information about us, would end up in an archive without ever being accessed. To rephrase this, if you are truly paranoid about surveillance by the government, the solution is not to avoid surveillance. The ideal solution is to find the courage to be willing to experiment with society so that we can create a city with so little crime that the government has no need to access any of the surveillance information, and a government that is so honest that we don't have to worry about them looking at the data anyway.

“Prepare for riots!”

As Zimmerman's trial was coming to an end, hundreds, possibly thousands, of journalists and people on the Internet began publicizing accusations that black people will have a violent rampage if Zimmerman is considered not guilty. I think that they were trying to instigate riots by convincing us that the riots were going to occur, by encouraging fear among white people, and encouraging black people to become angry.

There are millions of African Americans, and some of them are retarded, some are mentally ill, and some are stupid. If just one black person behaves in a disgusting manner, the media will give him special publicity and try to make it appear as if he is a typical African-American. For example, the New York daily news reported that a 15-year-old boy in Chicago wrote on Twitter:

"If Zimmerman free imam shoot everybody in Zion causing a mass homicide, and ill get away wit it just like Zimmerman"

Several people reported that boy to the FBI, and the boy soon deleted his remark. Almost everybody ignored the issue except the New York Daily News. They treated it as if it was important news. Their headline for the article was:
Trayvon Martin shooting: Teen threatens 'mass homicide' on Twitter if George Zimmerman is acquitted

If we had total surveillance of the entire human population, we would find that there are people of every race, and both men and women, who occasionally make angry and sarcastic remarks. We would find children make the most bizarre remarks of all. There is no benefit to society in giving publicity to those idiotic remarks, especially the remarks from children.

Imagine an extreme example. Imagine if all newspapers devoted every page to the idiotic remarks that were made on the previous day by children. How many days would you have to read those idiotic remarks before you came to the conclusion that the news agencies were not providing you with news, and that the people in the media should be arrested for trying to manipulate us?

In the days prior to the verdict, and on the following day, the media was providing news reports of people in leadership positions calling for calm. For example, on the day after the verdict, a CBS news article had the title, "Leaders Call For Calm In Wake Of Zimmerman Verdict".

Late Saturday night, 13 July, I noticed that Mike Adams has posted this article (a screen image to the right) to warn his readers about the upcoming riots. I would recommend that he switch from a photo in which he is laughing at us to a photo that makes him look worried.

Also late on Saturday, I noticed that breitbart.com announced that Christina Silva, an Associated Press reporter, sent out an angry tweet, "So we can all kill teenagers now?" She deleted it soon afterwards, and the AP soon told breitbart that Silva was only a temporary employee and hasn't worked at AP lately, but breitbart fought back and did some research on her. They responded that she had written an article for the Associated Press less than a week earlier, and that she has written regularly for them as far back as 2010. breitbart does not care that she deleted the remark, or that she is not a regular AP employee. They consider her to be such an important person that the entire world must be informed of even her deleted remarks.

Within hours that breitbart article was getting publicity by other websites. The next morning, at 9:23 Pacific time, Sunday 14 July, I decided to do a search for the phrase "So we can all kill teenagers now". It showed 5910 results. A lot of those sites were obviously under the control of Jews, such as matzav.com and drugereport.com. Silva's idiotic remark got a lot of publicity in about 12 hours, especially when you consider that most people in North America were sleeping during those 12 hours, not updating their websites.

It is useful to look at how those sites publicized the breitbart article. For example, at beforeitsnews.com we find this:
A reporter from the Associated Press immediately jumped to Twitter as soon as the George Zimmerman verdict was read and fanned the flames of racism, stirring would-be rioter’s passions by saying that now it is legal to “kill teenagers now.”

Hopefully you can recognize this particular tactic. The Jews pretend to be honest, unbiased observers of world events who provide us with the truth of what is happening. In this particular case, they are informing us of a terrible journalist who "immediately jumped" and "fanned the flames of racism". In reality, it is the Jews who publicized Silva's comment who immediately jumped to fan the flames of racism.

Regardless of Silva's relationship with the Associated Press, regardless of why she made the remark, it is important to notice that the Jews accuse other people of doing what they themselves are doing. This trick shifts the blame for their disgusting behavior onto somebody else, thereby making them appear to be the honest and unbiased. By sacrificing a journalist that they don't care for, the others can improve their image.

If we had total surveillance of the human population, we would be able to see who among us is promoting Silva's stupid remark. We would also be able to see who first reported it, and, even more importantly, how they knew about it.

If I was a black man, I would consider these type of articles to be insulting. Imagine a more extreme example. Imagine if a tornado were to pass through a watermelon patch in Texas, and the news agencies published such articles as,

How many more decades are the black people going to tolerate the abuse that they are receiving from the media? Why don't the leaders of the black community provide some leadership? The reason is because the Jews are in control of which black people get publicity, and they will only allow the black people who either promote a Caucasian, Jewish Jesus, or who encourage hatred, anger, pouting, and tantrums.

What is a "leader"? How do we determine who is showing leadership qualities? To the majority of voters, a leader is anybody who agrees with them, praises them, and promises them jobs and wealth. I would describe that type of leader as a submissive servant, or as a con artist.

To see what a real leader should be, take a look at the management of businesses and military units. When a manager of a business encounters a problem, he does not encourage panic, fear, paranoia, or anger. He does not warn his employees to stay inside and prepare for riots. A leader attacks and solves problems, he does not prepare for chaos and hide in the bushes like a frightened rabbit. He tries to keep the members of his organization working together, not living in fear of one another or hating one another. He encourages cooperation, responsibility, and cheerful attitudes. He wants to keep the morale high. If the leader of a business or military is worried about some members having a temper tantrum, he does not tell everybody to prepare for the tantrum and hide from the violence. He warns those employees that if they misbehave, they will be fired or arrested. A leader doesn't hide from potential riots. He tries to find a peaceful way to prevent them, and if they occur anyway, he stands up to the violence.

The people in the media do not encourage us to keep a good attitude and work together. They are not educating us about world events, either. They give publicity to some of the worst behaved people and some of the stupidest remarks. They encourage fear, hatred, panic, and hiding in the bushes. These people should not be in a position of importance. They should not be influencing our lives or our future. They ought to be arrested.

Where is our legal system in helping us deal with this disgusting media? Why doesn't Gloria Allred or Alan Dershowitz file lawsuits against the news agencies? The answer to that question should be obvious. A question that is more difficult to answer is, how much longer are people going to tolerate the abuse by lawyers, judges, news agencies, history professors, charities, churches, and other people in influential positions? When are the people going to select true leaders for society?

We should learn from Martin's death, not hate somebody

I did not put much effort into investigating the killing of Martin, but my casual observation of the incident shows me that there are lessons that we could learn from it, if we are willing to analyze the event completely rather than focus on the few seconds during which Martin was killed.

From what I understand, Zimmerman was driving in his neighborhood on a rainy evening with occasional lightning, and he noticed Martin walking around. Zimmerman was an active member of his neighborhood crimewatch organization, and so he was always watching for potential criminals, and he carried a gun with him. Since it was unusual for people in his neighborhood to be walking around at night in that type of weather, he became suspicious of Martin and called the police. While he was talking to the police, Zimmerman got out of his vehicle to confront Martin. After the phone call ended, he got into a fight with Martin, resulting in his shooting of Martin.

This incident brings up an important aspect of modern society. Specifically, people who behave in an unusual manner must expect other people to be suspicious of them. Both Martin and Zimmerman were unusual. Martin was unusual for walking through that particular neighborhood on a rainy night, and Zimmerman was unusually active in watching for suspicious people.

I would say that Zimmerman was justified in wondering what Martin was doing, and Martin was justified in becoming annoyed by Zimmerman. This killing may be an example of two unusual people irritating one another to such an extent that they end up fighting.

People, such as Martin, who behave in an unusual manner, must realize that they are going to attract people's attention, and they have no right to react with anger, insults, or defiance. Unusual people who react with anger are going to cause even more suspicion.

Likewise, people such as Zimmerman, who are also unusual, must expect people to wonder who they are and why they are being confronted by them. How would you feel if you were walking down the street in the rain and somebody driving by stops his vehicle, rushes over to you, and confronts you about your motives. Your reaction would likely be, "Who are you? You're not a policeman. Why should I have to stand here in the rain and be interrogated by you?"

Or imagine walking in a park, passing through an area with children, and being confronted by a paranoid person who is concerned that you are a pedophile. You would likely be annoyed by him. And imagine if the person grabbed your arm as you walked away and said, "I'm asking you a question! What are you doing here looking at those children?" If you remained calm, the confrontation would remain peaceful, but it would be difficult for a man to control his temper when somebody grabs him.

If we had total surveillance of the planet and could look through video of Zimmerman's life and Martin's life, we might find that Zimmerman had confronted several other people during the previous years, and that Martin had been confronted by several other people in the preceding years, but none of those confrontations became violent because the other person had a more easy-going personality. In such a case, we might conclude that the reason Martin and Zimmerman ended up in a violent confrontation is because both of them were abnormally irritable, aggressive, arrogant, and/or violent.

The lawyers involved with the Zimmerman trial focused attention on a very narrow slice of time in the life of Martin and Zimmerman; specifically, the few seconds during which they were fighting. They focused on the issue of whether Zimmerman killed Martin in self-defense. A more serious analysis would look at the lives of both of those men to figure out how they ended up in a violent confrontation. We are not going to learn anything of value unless we understand why the fight occurred.

Unfortunately, the American legal system is designed to make it almost impossible for jurors to analyze a person's life if there are unpleasant aspects of his past. Since both Martin and Zimmerman have a past that would tarnish their image, the lawyers deliberately censored that information and gave the jury a distorted view of both men. Our legal system promotes the idiotic attitude that we can understand a fight by focusing on the guns, knives, and punches, and ignoring the personalities of the people, and by ignoring the influences that caused those people to get into a fight.

In order to learn something of value from that killing, we must understand why it happened. For example, why did Zimmerman stop his car and confront Martin? The reason is because he was part of a neighborhood watch committee, and he was always watching for suspicious people. This then leads us to the question of why he was part of a neighborhood watch committee. The answer is because there was crime in his area, and he is just one of millions of Americans who have no confidence that their police, courts, or government will protect them from crime. Millions of citizens in America are purchasing guns and living in fear of criminals. Some of them are going even further and behaving like Zimmerman; namely, patrolling their neighborhoods. They are taking the role of policemen.

Some of the citizens who are carrying guns and behaving like policemen would qualify for the job of a policeman, but some of them would be turned down on the grounds that they don't have the necessary emotional stability, intelligence, or personality. Allowing those particular people to take the role of a policeman is asking for trouble.

Would Zimmerman have qualified to be a policeman? I don't know, but if not, then why should he be wandering around the neighborhood with a gun and acting like a policeman? And without any supervision?

If a person cannot qualify to be a doctor, dentist, or pilot, we do not allow him to do those jobs during his leisure time. We should follow the same philosophy in regards to police activities. If a person cannot qualify to be a policeman or carry a gun in public, then we should not let him carry a gun and behave like policeman as a leisure activity.

Another lesson that we could learn from this killing is that these type of killings, although rare, would be reduced significantly, if not entirely, if we can figure out how to create a police department and legal system that is so effective at eliminating crime that none of the citizens feel a need to take the role of a policeman.

It will not be easy for us to create an effective law enforcement system, but the alternative is to continue following our ineffective system. Creating a better law enforcement and legal system will require that we conduct lots of emotionally traumatic experiments with society, but the benefits are worth the emotional trauma.

If the British had developed a more effective legal system years ago, Katie Piper would have had the confidence to contact the police about her troubles, and she would still have her face. If America had developed an effective legal system decades ago, Jerry Sandusky's victims would have had the confidence to contact the police, and Sandusky would have been removed decades ago. And consider all of the kidnap victims, such as Elizabeth Smart and the Bollyn family, who have so little faith in the police and courts that they don't bother to escape from their kidnappers, or, in the case of the Bollyn family, they may have already tried to escape but the corrupt police took them back to the kidnappers.

The longer we do nothing to improve our law enforcement and legal system, the longer we suffer abuse. However, don't be fooled into thinking that we can reduce crime with some simplistic method, such as passing a few new laws, electing a new president, or encouraging people to carry guns. If the solution was that simple, it would have been discovered long ago.

For many centuries people have been trying to reduce crime by carrying swords and knives, and today millions of Americans believe they can stop crime by encouraging citizens to carry guns, but I think these people are wasting our resources, such as steel, lead, and chemicals, and they are encouraging destructive attitudes.

Earlier I mentioned that a more sensible legal system should analyze the citizens with guns to determine if America's policy of providing guns to ordinary people is providing us with benefits that outweigh the disadvantages. I suspect that we would discover that providing citizens with guns is causing problems for society in several ways. One reason is that when we encourage the citizens to carry guns for protection, we are promoting the attitude that our police department and government are so ineffective that we cannot depend upon them for protection. A more appropriate attitude would be to encourage the citizens to support the experimentation of better crime reduction policies. We should improve our police departments, legal system, and government, not encourage citizens to consider their police to be so worthless that we must do the job that they are supposed to do.

Another reason the gun fanatics are hurting society is because they are encouraging the citizens to live in fear of one another and be prepared to shoot one another. They don't want children carrying guns, so some of them are teaching children to poke eyeballs and crush testicles, and almost everybody is teaching their children to be frightened of strangers. I don't think these "solutions" are providing a healthy environment for children or adults. I think they are creating an environment of fear and paranoia.

Another problem with encouraging citizens to have guns is that it requires we produce a phenomenal number of guns and bullets, but the more we produce, the easier it will be for criminals to get guns and bullets. Criminals will always be able to get access to illegal items, but the fewer guns and bullets we produce, and the more restricted they are, the more difficult it becomes for the criminals to get access to them. If the gun fanatics were demanding the right to have shoulder-mounted rockets, then there would be so many of those rockets in America that criminals would have easy access to them, also.

The Zimmerman trial shows another reason why it is idiotic to encourage citizens to carry guns. Specifically, Zimmerman could have been convicted of murder for doing what the gun fanatics promote. Americans have such a strong "feel sorry for the loser" attitude that we must be very careful about killing a person. The police also have to be very cautious about killing criminals. Even if we kill a person who is obviously dangerous and violating the law, our courts may convict us of murder.

In Zimmerman's trial, a medical examiner testified that Zimmerman's injuries during the fight were insignificant, rather than life-threatening. Lawyers use that information to show that Zimmerman killed a man who was not threatening his life. Americans cannot kill a person unless we can prove that he is threatening our life. We are not allowed to kill a person who is merely beating us, raping us, or stealing from us.

Zimmerman says that Martin punched him, but that requires Martin to be within an arm's length of Zimmerman. How did they get so close? The last words Martin supposedly said over the telephone before the fight occurred was, “the nigga is still following me”. If it is true that Martin said Zimmerman is "still" following him, that implies that he told Zimmerman to stop following him, but Zimmerman continued to do so anyway. If we could watch video of the event, we might conclude that Zimmerman's abnormally aggressive behavior instigated the fight by irritating Martin.

I suspect that Zimmerman followed Martin a bit, asking him what he was doing, eventually getting very close to him. He may have grabbed Martin's arm or shoulder under the assumption that a teenager would not cause trouble to an adult. Most teenagers in that position would probably yell at Zimmerman to "Get your hands off me!", but I suppose that Martin reacted by punching Zimmerman. Some teenagers would have then ran away, but Martin continued to fight. Since Martin was larger, stronger, and quicker than Zimmerman, he was soon pounding Zimmerman's head on the sidewalk. Zimmerman realized he was in serious trouble, so he pulled out his gun and shot Martin.

Zimmerman justifies killing Martin on the grounds that Martin was on top of him and beating him severely. An analysis of the bullet trajectory shows that Zimmerman appears to be telling the truth, but that doesn't give Zimmerman the right to kill Martin. A person who starts a fight and then loses it doesn't have the right to kill the person he started the fight with.

I'm not trying to make Martin look innocent, however. If we could thoroughly analyze both of their lives, we might find that Martin was an abnormally violent teenager, and that society is better off without him. If there was some way to run an experiment in which we go back in time and prevent Zimmerman from having contact with Martin, and then watch Martin's life, we might discover that a few years from now he will lose his temper once again and violently rape and beat a woman. In such a case, we could conclude that Zimmerman protected that woman by killing Martin. To make this scenario more useful for a movie plot, imagine if that woman is Christina Silva.

Or, if we could go back in time and prevent that confrontation between Martin and Zimmerman, and we then follow Zimmerman's life, we might find that in a couple of years Zimmerman gets even more carried away by playing policeman, and he kills several truly innocent people instead of a violent teenager.

The American legal system doesn't want an analysis of a person's qualities because America is trying to follow the philosophy that everybody is equal. Our legal system doesn't care whether we kill a criminal or a respectable person. Our legal system allows people to hide their undesirable qualities and create the impression that they are honest, law-abiding citizens.

What is the benefit to society for treating everybody equally? This policy makes it impossible for parents to kill their retarded children. A parent who kills a severely retarded child is treated exactly as if he killed a valuable member of society. Many Americans want to extend this policy to fetuses so that parents and doctors are guilty of murder for having abortions. How does society benefit by treating a fetus as our equal? Likewise, what is the benefit to society when we treat destructive people as our equals?

The philosophy of treating everybody as our equal is emotionally appealing, but it is detrimental to society. Nature does not follow this philosophy. The competitive battle for life gives preference to the higher-quality creatures who can take care of themselves. Human societies must follow the same philosophy or we will degrade into retards.

An analysis of all of the fights that people get into would certainly show us that violent fights are not randomly distributed among the population. Certain people are more prone to getting into a violent fight. Some people routinely get into arguments and fights because their job is related to security, and managers often get into arguments with their employees, but among the citizens who get into violent fights during their leisure time, I think that an analysis would show us that they are among the most violent and detrimental people in society. We should show less concern when the abnormally violent people kill one another.

Daryl Smith threatened me in several phone calls, most of which I posted here for you to listen to. How many men make threats like that? If we could analyze his life, I suspect that we would find that he was frequently behaving in a violent and destructive manner. Here are three excerpts, in which he told me how terrible he was, but he would not provide any details. What are those details?
  Smith-excerpts.mp3   100 kbytes

A society's policies on all of these issues are personal opinions, so if you don't get involved, then somebody is going to make these decisions for you. I suggest you seriously discuss these issues with other people and get involved with setting the future course of the human race.

For more reasons on why I think the policy of encouraging citizens to carry guns is ineffective and idiotic, see the material I wrote here in September 2012.

A cry for help is not a sign of innocence

During Zimmerman's trial, the lawyers played the audio of the phone call Zimmerman made to 911 during the fight, and somebody can be heard crying for help. The quality is too low to determine whether it was Zimmerman or Martin, so the lawyers spent time arguing over whose voice it might be. What difference does it make who was crying for help?

Zimmerman might have been crying when Martin was banging his head on the sidewalk, and Martin may have been crying after he got shot. For all we know, both of them were crying. What difference does it make who was crying? How does that change anything?

Whenever a fight occurs, and we hear somebody crying for help, we can almost always conclude that the loser is crying for help, not the winner. When we don't know anything about the fight, and when we focus only on those few seconds during which one of them is crying, our emotions will be triggered by the cries, and we are likely to assume that the person who is crying is an innocent victim. However, the loser is not necessarily an innocent victim. In some cases the person who starts a fight ends up losing it. Criminals sometimes fight with the police, and then cry when they are injured. Their tears are not proof of their innocence.

The jury in Zimmerman's trial is small, only six women. I don't think it is a coincidence that only women were selected by the lawyers. I suspect that the lawyers are assuming that they can more easily manipulate women. I suppose that they played the audio of the crying because they thought it would stimulate the women in the jury, and since nobody could figure out who was crying, it is like a joker in a poker game. In other words, if a woman is biased in favor of Zimmerman, then she is more likely to assume that Zimmerman was crying for help, and if she is biased in favor of Martin, she will assume that Martin is crying.

Five of the six jurors were white, so maybe the lawyers were hoping that they would be biased in favor of Zimmerman. Or maybe the lawyers thought that a nearly all-white jury would anger black people by creating the impression that our courts are biased against black people. (In reality, our courts are biased against everybody who is not Jewish.)

For another example of how the trial was primarily emotional rather than intellectual, the lawyers brought both Martin's mother and Zimmerman's mother into the trial to testify, but neither of them were witnesses to the fight, so they had nothing of value to say. If there was a trial to determine whether Henry Kissinger was involved in arranging the 9/11 attack, would you want to listen to what his mother has to say about him?

Zimmerman's trial, and trials all over America and Europe, are not serious attempts to understand crimes or improve society. They are disgusting battles between lawyers to manipulate jurors.

Incidentally, have you noticed that our courts are so dishonest and so idiotic that it is not easy to decide whether the lawyers in the highly publicized cases, such as the Zimmerman trial, were working together to instigate racial fights, or whether they were truly arguing their particular case?

If it seems bizarre that both the prosecution and the defense would work together to manipulate us, take a look at the media. They frequently set up debates in which different people argue different sides of a topic, but in reality, all of them are conspiring to deceive and manipulate us.

For example, years ago, when they had discussions about the 9/11 attack, they provided us with a wide variety of different, independent "experts" who would give us their particular opinions on who was responsible, why the towers fell down, and what our reaction should be. They would also give us occasional interviews of "ordinary" people. To a television viewer, it appeared as if we were listening to a variety of different, intelligent people who were having an honest and serious discussion, but in reality, the Jews were conspiring to hide a lot of information from us and secretly push us into believing Arabs were responsible for the attack, and that we should start a war with no concern for how many Arabs we kill.

The American presidential elections are another example of this trick. The American voters believe that they have the freedom to choose any citizen to be their president, but in reality, the Jews restrict the candidates by giving publicity only to those who meet their approval.

With so much evidence that the Jews conspire against us on a regular basis, why should we assume that the lawyers and judges can be trusted?

The more homogenous a city is, the more an unusual person will stand out

Employees have lots of rules to follow. For example, no business allows its employees to wander freely around its buildings. In areas where there are dangerous machines or chemicals, there may be lines on the floor to show people where to walk and where to avoid. There are some areas of a business that are off-limits to certain employees. Some areas are off-limits only during certain times of the day or night. Employees are also restricted to using the equipment that they have been authorized to use, and they must only use the equipment for business purposes, not their own pleasure.

Businesses mark off areas for employees to stay away from.

The employees could whine that the lines on the floor and the other restrictions are degrading, and that it makes the employees feel as if they are slaves, idiots, or children. They could whine that they want the freedom to go wherever they please and do what they want. However, businesses would never tolerate such whining. The management creates the rules for the safety of the employees, for the efficiency of the business, and to reduce potential crimes. They do not create the rules for their own personal benefit, or to abuse any of the employees. When the management creates these rules, they are thinking of what is best for the business; they are not thinking of what is best for themselves, or how to get revenge on a particular employee.

Compare the behavior of employees to that of the citizens. Employees are so willing to follow the rules that a business only has to put lines on the floor to keep people away from certain areas. By comparison, cities need concrete barricades, chain-link fences, barbed wire, and warning signs in order to keep people out, and even those techniques don't stop some people. Some museums, social events, and recreational events need security guards standing around to watch the people. Electrical substations have multiple fences and warning signs, but there are some people who cross over them anyway.

We don't have to live in a city in which the people are badly behaved. If we create a new city, and if we can figure out how to provide it with a respectable government and legal system, then we could set the type of standards for the citizens that businesses set for their employees. This would enable us to remove many of the fences, barricades, bulletproof windows, security guards, and other devices that are intended to control the badly behaved people. We would have to continue providing barricades for children, but I think we will have a much more pleasant life if we demand that the adults meet higher standards of behavior.

If a city raises standards for its citizens, and if they control immigration to make their city more homogenous, the people will become more similar to one another than they are in the cities today. Everybody will have a very similar life. The significance of this concept is that the people who are different from others are going to stand out much more in a homogenous city than they do in the American cities of today, and that is going to cause them to attract a lot more attention from other citizens and security agencies.

To rephrase this concept, the more similar the people in a city are, the more attention and suspicion an unusual person will attract. A person who we would consider "typical" in society today might be considered a "freak" when living among people who are extremely homogenous.

The children in such a city should be taught about these concepts. They should realize that they should explain themselves when confronted about their motives rather than behave in a defiant manner. If we do not explain this concept to children, we will increase the chances of angry confrontations.

Our primitive ancestors didn't have any rules to follow, and they didn't have to teach their children much of anything, but as society becomes more complicated, we have to devise more rules, and the rules become more complex. This in turn requires that we spend more time preparing children for society. We need to teach the children what the rules are, and how to fit into society. We cannot expect children to figure out the rules because the rules are arbitrary. We need to teach them how to behave, how to find a home, how to get a job, and how our legal system works. As society and jobs become more complex, schools have to do a better job of preparing children for society and helping them determine what type of job to prepare for.

In the world today, no schools have classes on preparing children for society, and no society is making a significant attempt to help children or adults to find jobs. Every society is still only slightly more advanced than a tribe of savages. Parents are still playing with their children as if their children are toys, and when the children get older and move out of the house, they are on their own to figure out what to do with their lives and how to fit into society. We have to stop treating children as toys and start regarding them as the future generation of the human race.

If we could provide a city with the type of leadership that we expect in a properly managed business or military unit, then our leaders would regard the people in society in the same way that executives regard their employees; namely, as team members. They would want to help their team members, including the children. They would want everybody to be productive members.

Our leaders should analyze the social problems that we face, and then provide us with guidelines and restrictions. They should create the rules for the benefit of society, not for their own selfish purposes, to suppress their competitors, to help their criminal friends, or to get revenge on people they are envious of. These type of leaders would bring some sense to all aspects of our lives, such as clothing styles, holiday celebrations, recreational activities, and sports. Instead of letting our social practices drift about aimlessly and be manipulated by religions, businesses, charities, and criminals, we would be able to determine exactly what our society and future will be.

Total surveillance provides the most peaceful solution to crime

One of the reasons Zimmerman justifies killing Martin is that he claims that Martin was pounding his head on the concrete sidewalk. The lawyers responded that photographs of the back of Zimmerman's head show trivial injuries. This brings up a very important issue. However, instead of using Martin for this example, I suggest you watch this video in which a woman has been robbed and knocked on the sidewalk by a group of possibly six criminals. I am not yet aware of why the woman was out so late at night on the streets, or why she was being attacked, so it is possible that she is a criminal. However, there have been situations in which an innocent person is attacked by a gang of criminals, so assume that this video shows one of those situations.

Low-quality security video of a man in the process of kicking a woman in the face.

As the gang of criminals run away, one of them pauses to kick her in the face, which causes her to go unconscious. He then runs away. There are several bystanders in the area, but none of them do anything. If George Zimmerman had been in the area, or if a policeman was in the area, and if either of them had shot the man after he kicked the woman in the face, he would be accused of "killing a man in cold blood", or "shooting a man in the back." And if Zimmerman or a policeman were to shoot the other members of the gang, they would be accused of mass murder.

Neither citizens nor the police are allowed to kill a criminal who is running away from his crime, except in bizarre situations in which somebody can prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that people's lives were in danger as a result of that criminal.

Before I continue, consider one other aspect of this robbery case. Imagine if the woman had been following the advice of the gun fanatics and was carrying a gun. Imagine that she had reacted so quickly to the robbery that she grabbed her gun and shot and killed the criminal closest to her before they had a chance to push her on the ground. In such a case, the others may have run away, and she would have remained standing, and we can be certain that some lawyers would make it appear as if she killed a non-violent person who was trying to rob her. She would not have been kicked in the face, and none of the criminals would have displayed any violent behavior. And if she had shot more than one of the criminals, she would be guilty of the mass murder of nonviolent people. And if she continued shooting at the criminals as they were running away from her, she would be described as a threat to society. The American legal system would allow her to shoot only the criminal who was directly threatening her life. She would not be allowed to shoot the other gang members.

People are not identical, so every gang consists of people who vary in their tendency towards violence. If you are attacked by a gang of criminals, you cannot figure out if any of them will become violent. Why should you be responsible for passing judgment on which of the members might be violent? Any attack by a criminal should be considered dangerous and destructive, and an attack by a gang should be considered extremely dangerous and an unfair situation. You cannot properly defend yourself against gangs. It is equivalent to an adult attacking a small child.

When we encounter a gang of criminals, we should not have to assume they are nonviolent and wait for them to threaten our lives. A more sensible policy, from the point of view of society, is to consider gangs to be more dangerous to society than individual criminals, and that anybody who chooses to join a crime gang should be considered as taking an unfair advantage against society, and therefore, loses all his rights. Individuals cannot fight gangs without some assistance, such as weapons. Furthermore, individuals cannot wait for a gang to become violent because if a person has to wait, then the gang can calmly and quietly walk up to him, surround him, and then quickly grab him. He will never have the opportunity to defend himself.

Attacks by gangs are rare, but part of the reason is because many people are afraid to wander around at night, and they don't want their children outside at night. We are not going to solve the problem of gangs by living in fear of them. It would be much better to design a city in which both adults and children can safely walk around their city at night without guns, armed guards, police patrols, and security lights. We should also be free of worrying about people putting drugs into our drinks and food.

We should stop feeling sorry for the underdog and start protecting the respectable people. A more sensible policy is to consider gangs as being as dangerous as adults who attack children. Neither the police nor the citizens should wait for them to become violent. The police should be able to shoot at them, even if they are running away. Gangs need to be eliminated, not given pity.

Furthermore, the police should be able to shoot at criminals who refuse to stop when ordered to stop. There have been times when a criminal runs from the police, but not because he feels guilty for what he did and wants to start a new and honest life. Sometimes a criminal runs away so that he can get a better shot at the policeman.

It would be unpleasant and dangerous to live in a city in which policemen are shooting at gang members and other criminals. Although I advocate giving policemen the right to do this, the ideal situation is to design a society that provides the police with a more peaceful solution to crime. I would say that the best and most peaceful solution is to stop the secrecy that we are giving people.

The woman who got kicked in the face was observed by a security camera. Imagine if the city was providing total surveillance of the population, and with better cameras, and with cameras that can see at night. Imagine that computers with facial recognition software can keep track of where everybody is and what everybody is doing. In such a city, the police would not only see who kicked her, but they would see where they ran away to, where they live, and who they associate with. It would become virtually impossible for criminals to hide among us.

In that type of society, citizens don't need to take the role of policemen, or do neighborhood watches. The police would not have to be concerned about catching criminals immediately, either. The police would not have to conduct high-speed chases, which are dangerous, and they would not have to shoot guns in public, which is also dangerous. The police could relax, think about the issue, and make plans to catch the criminals in a safe manner.

Everybody in the city would be listed in the computer's database, and so the computer would know exactly how many people it needs to track, and that would allow it to follow every person in the city. The computer would automatically update everybody's image to deal with the aging process. If the computer found too many or too few people in the city, or if it found a face that it could not recognize, then the police would be alerted that something is wrong. It would be impossible for illegal aliens to live among us. Nobody would bother carrying identification, either. The police would not have to ask anybody who they are. Instead, they would ask the computer to identify the person who is standing in front of them.

Of course, you can devise scenarios in which people find ways to outsmart the tracking software, but if we stop tolerating criminals and evict them from society, they can only do it one time.

That type of society would reduce crime to such a low level that we would not need the police to patrol the streets. The city would be so safe that children could wander around at any time of day or night. We would not need bright security lights everywhere, either. Instead of people being frightened by criminals hiding in the fog, the children could take advantage of fog when they play hide and seek.

By putting all of the surveillance and tracking information in a publicly accessible database, parents would never have to wonder where their children were. A person could access the database through his cell phone or computer to see where his children are, and he could also look back in time to see where his children were, and who they have been with. He could even look through the surveillance video to see exactly what his children were doing and saying.

Would that type of city be invading everybody's privacy? Would it create an oppressive, stifling police state? Or would it provide people with the wonderful freedom to live with no fear of crime?

Would that extreme surveillance make a child's life miserable by never letting them get away from their parents? Or would it provide parents with the freedom to let their children do as they want, while remaining connected to their children through a computer?

The answers to these type of questions depend upon your personality. If you do not get involved with these issues, then somebody else is going to determine what type of city the future generations will have.

Damaging a brain is murdering a person

Another reason I wanted to show the video of the woman being kicked in the face is to bring up the issue of how important our brain is. If that woman suffers brain damage from the attack, most people would consider it to be an unfortunate incident, not much worse than a bruise or a scratch. However, I would say that brain damage, even small amounts, should be considered equivalent to murder.

You are what your brain is, not what your heart, fingertip, or stomach is. You can live without your arms, nose, and legs, but you are not "you" without your brain. A person who causes brain damage is destroying your life. If that woman suffered brain damage from that attack, then she died that night. Her friends, husband, and children will notice that she is not the same person. The woman they knew is gone forever.

Now consider how this concept applies to George Zimmerman. A lawyer said that Zimmerman had no right to kill Martin because Martin was not hitting his head hard enough for the attack to be considered life-threatening. We are not supposed to kill a person unless our lives are truly in danger.

If somebody is pounding your head on the concrete sidewalk, you may suffer from permanent brain damage. You should not have to wait for him to inflict life-threatening injuries before you can kill him. You should not have to assume that all he wants to do is create some trivial bruises to the back of your head. You should consider it to be attempted murder. Actually, I would say people who cause brain damage are worse than murderers because brain damage can leave you in a state in which you are suffering for the rest of your life, and serious brain damage can cause you to become a burden on your friends, family members, and society.

If Martin really was pounding Zimmerman's head on concrete, I would say that Zimmerman is justified in killing Martin. Of course, if Zimmerman is the nuisance to society rather than Martin, then I would say Martin would have been justified in killing him.

I don't know why Martin and Zimmerman were fighting, but the point I want to make is that a society should consider the brains of its citizens to be the most valuable part of their body. We should not tolerate people who inflict brain damage. Nobody who is having his head pounded on the sidewalk should be told by a lawyer that his head wasn't being hit hard enough to justify killing the attacker.

Our society has such a strong feel sorry for the loser attitude that we don't care if criminals cause brain damage, and we don't care if athletes deliberately cause brain damage to one another. We treat the brain as if it is a useless appendage. George Clooney suffered some type of brain or nerve injury, as I mentioned here, and if some people arranged for it, then they should be considered guilty of murder, even though Clooney is still alive and the injury may appear "trivial". Imagine an extreme example in which thousands of gang members, Hollywood executives, and athletes are causing thousands of cases of brain damage every month. They would eventually destroy society.

We encourage rebellion, defiance, and smartass behavior

Imagine a society in which everybody is responsible and polite. In such a society, if a policeman were to ask somebody a question, he would politely respond with an answer rather than respond with defiant, angry, or smartass remarks. If a policeman asked a person to stop, he would stop.

An analysis of our crimes would show us that our society is encouraging fights and bad behavior by encouraging people to behave in a rebellious, smartass manner. For example, in 2008, a fight occurred on a commuter train in San Francisco. When the police arrived, the first thing they did was to separate the men who were fighting from the rest of the passengers. They told the men to get out of the train and stand against the wall. Unfortunately, a couple of those men did not want to stand politely or quietly. The police then told them to sit down rather than stand. A couple of the men quietly followed the orders of the police, but two of them were rebellious and defiant. One man in particular, Oscar Grant, was causing so much trouble that the officers decided to put handcuffs on him. The passengers in the train were yelling at the police, inspiring more defiance. Oscar put up a struggle when they tried to put handcuffs on him, and during that struggle one policeman pulled out his gun and shot and killed him.

Several people have video of the incident, and it is rather obvious that the policemen did not "need" to kill Oscar, and as a result, many people want the policeman to be accused of murder. However, we should not focus on the few seconds during which Oscar was killed. We need to look at this issue completely, and from the point of view of what is best for society.

One aspect of this issue that people are ignoring are the bystanders. We have a tendency to regard the "ordinary people" as innocent and loving, but the ordinary people are rarely innocent or loving. The majority of them regularly behave like apathetic, selfish animals. In the case of Oscar Grant's death, they were not apathetic or quiet, and they were not encouraging the men to cooperate with the police. They were encouraging defiance, and their loud and constant yelling would have been an irritation to the police, even if they had been yelling something sensible. Their angry remarks would have irritated the police and encouraged Oscar Grant to become more defiant. I would say that the bystanders, rather than being innocent, are partly responsible for his death by encouraging him to fight with the police and by irritating the police.

Oscar Grant would have been considered a troublemaker no matter which nation he was living in, and no matter what race the policemen were. Every society needs to develop sensible policies for the police for when they encounter defiant people, such as Oscar Grant. Would it be best to tell policemen to fight with the rebellious people as peacefully as possible? Or would it be better to tell the police to just pull out their gun and kill the troublemakers?

Consider the effect on society of both of those policies. If the police are told to fight peacefully, then everybody who is a troublemaker will realize that it is safe for him to fight with the police as long as they don't threaten a policeman's life. I think this policy will increase the fighting with police.

Now consider the other extreme. Imagine a society in which the citizens are told that when the police give them an order, they must politely and immediately obey the order, and if they put up a fight, the policeman has the authority to kill them. If that policy had been in effect in San Francisco in 2008, then the police would have told Oscar Grant to sit down and be quiet, and as soon as he caused trouble, a policeman would have pulled out his gun and killed him. The police never would have bothered to yell at him or struggle to put handcuffs on him.

What effect would such a policy have on society? Some people would say that it would create unbelievable fear of the police, but if we can create an honest police force, I think it would reduce the defiant, smartass behavior, especially with teenagers. It will certainly increase the number of people being killed by the police, but the police would kill only those who are undesirable, not the polite, responsible people. Nobody of value would be killed.

The same concept applies to the bystanders. When a society allows bystanders to behave in any manner that they please, then bystanders are free to yell at the police and encourage defiant behavior. America allows people to throw rocks and spit at the police. The police are expected to calmly stand in front of this obnoxious, disgusting behavior while hiding behind clear plastic shields.

By comparison, if the police are told that when the bystanders interfere with their work, that they can shoot and kill the worst behaved bystanders, then the bystanders will realize that they have a responsibility to behave in a respectable manner.

I should remind you that this type of policy is possible only if the police can be trusted. The police would have to carry video cameras with them so that they can prove that they are killing only the people who cause trouble. If we allow a police department to kill people in secrecy, we run the risk of corrupt police departments killing people they don't like.

How do we determine which policy is best? We cannot figure it out. We have to experiment. Some city needs to find the courage to experiment with this policy. They would give video cameras to their police departments, and the police would kill everybody who cause them trouble. We would then observe the effect it has on the city. I suspect that there will be a difficult transition period during which people are angry and fearful of the police, and the police kill a lot of those defiant people, but after a year or two, I think the people would settle down and the city would become noticeably more peaceful.To find out, we need to experiment. Are you willing to do that?

Black people should think for themselves, not let movies incite hatred.

Incidentally, the Weinstein Company wrote and produced a movie, Fruitvale Station, about the killing of Oscar Grant. There are millions of people who have had interesting lives and experiences, so why did the Weinstein Company choose to create a movie about a badly behaved man who gets killed by the police?

I don't think the Weinstein Company is trying to provide us with intelligent information about this killing, or trying to stimulate intelligent discussions about how we can improve our legal system or police department. I think that they are hoping that this movie will fool black people into believing that Oscar Grant was killed simply because of his race.

If we had total surveillance of the human population, and if we were to observe the people who watch these movies, I think we would discover that these movies are stimulating unpleasant emotional feelings and bad behavior. Our conclusion would be that these movies are detrimental to society. We gain nothing from these type of movies. They don't encourage intelligent discussions or thoughts, and they don't invoke pleasant feelings. These movies are not serious documentaries.

If we analyzed the killing of Grant from the point of view of a Quality Control Engineer, then instead of focusing on the few seconds during which he was shot, we would analyze his entire life, we might come to the conclusion that he was a troublemaker. A thorough analysis of the police reaction would show us that police all around the world have similar reactions to troublemakers. We would notice that the police in Africa are just as black as Oscar Grant, and we would discover that when they encounter troublemakers, they also occasionally lose their temper. We would notice that the police in Mexico occasionally lose their temper when they encounter badly behaved Mexicans. The police in China occasionally lose their temper when they encounter badly behaved Chinese people.

Our conclusion would be that when a person starts a fight, regardless of whether he starts a fight with a policeman or a citizen, he may provoke the other person into attacking or killing him. We are going to make our situation worse if we allow the media to encourage black people to feel sorry for themselves and assume that the police are deliberately killing black people because of racism.

Our brain circuitry is more important than our environment

I think one of the reasons some people don't want to consider the importance of our brain is because if you accept the fact that we are what our brain is, you are forced to face the possibility that after an elderly person has a stroke, he is no longer the same person, and that this boy without a brain is not really a "human". It forces you to face the possibility that people with brain damage, regardless of whether it comes from crimes, strokes, or birth defects, are just pieces of meat. Most people want to ignore that harsh reality and create a fantasy world in which retarded people are just like you and I but with a few trivial differences, and that elderly people with strokes will eventually become normal.

Also, in order to face the fact that brain damage changes a person, it requires that you accept the theory that the physical structure of our brain - rather than the environment - makes us what we are. If you accept that fact, then you have no choice but to also face the fact that children inherit their mental characteristics from their ancestors rather than pick them up from the environment.

This in turn leads you to the conclusion that our intelligence, musical talents, memory, coordination, and other mental characteristics are due to the structure of our brain, and since we cannot change the structure of our brain, there is nothing we can do to make ourselves more intelligent, more talented, or more coordinated.

An enormous percentage of the population wants to believe the opposite. They want to think that the physical structure of their brain is insignificant, and that they are whatever they want to be. They want to blame their problems on the environment rather than genetics because that gives them the opportunity to improve themselves. For some examples, if a person convinces himself that his lack of musical talent is due to the environment, then he can convince himself that he will become just as talented as Mozart simply by practicing, or by going to a "better" school with "better" teachers. Parents can blame the teachers and schools for the stupidity of their children. A person with an emotional disorder can blame his problem on his childhood or his parents, and he can convince himself that he will become better by reading psychology books or watching self-help videos.

The environment has a tremendous effect over our opinions, skills, and culture, but it has no effect on how our brain or body functions. A dog will always be a dog regardless of the environment, and a stupid human will always be a stupid human regardless of the environment. Boys and girls will also show slightly different behavioral characteristics regardless of their environment.

What is causing problems in the world? What is preventing us from improving the world? It is the minds of the people that we live with. If you can accept the possibility that our behavior is due to the physical structure of our brain rather than the environment, and that each of us has a slightly different brain, then you are led to the conclusion that people are not equally responsible for the world's problems. The people with the inferior genetic characteristics are causing more trouble.

This in turn leads you to the conclusion that the world will improve by removing the worst behaved people and not letting them reproduce. The people remaining will not be flawless, so we will continue to have problems, but by continuously removing the worst behaved people, society will slowly improve, and the human race will slowly evolve into a more advanced species. In this section I will provide you with more information about this issue.

In July 2013, Nova broadcast a documentary about dogs, and like many other documentaries, it provided two "surprises": 1) that the behavior of a dog seems to be due to its genetics more than the environment, and 2) the mind of a dog has some surprising similarities to that of humans.

The documentary described an experiment that some Russian scientists started about 50 years ago in which they captured some wild foxes, all of which were aggressive towards humans. Then they passed judgment on which of the foxes were the least aggressive, and they let those foxes breed with one another. They also took the foxes that were the most aggressive and let them breed with one another. After many generations they notice the "surprising" result that the foxes that were selected for nonviolence became increasingly less violent with every generation, and eventually became almost as tame and friendly to humans as pet dogs, whereas the foxes that were being selected for violence became increasingly violent, eventually becoming what could be described as monsters.

Who among us would consider this documentary to be "surprising"? Farmers have been breeding tomatoes, peaches, and apples for centuries. Also, for thousands of years, long before anybody knew what DNA was, many people noticed that children resembled their parents. This information is only "new" and "surprising" to those who are resisting it.

A certain percentage of the human population is capable of understanding that children are inheriting characteristics from their parents, but an amazing percentage of the human population is too stupid to understand this concept, and/or too emotionally defective to face it.

The people who have the intelligence to understand genetics but refuse to face the issue are disregarding reality and creating a fantasy world for themselves. I would describe what these people are doing as "mental masturbation". They are ignoring whatever their emotions are upset by, and creating a fantasy that their emotions are titillated by. It is a similar mental process as a man who is masturbating while titillating himself with fantasies of making love to Queen Elizabeth or Lady Gaga. When men do that, they are disregarding reality and creating a fantasy that they find emotionally titillating. I doubt if we are causing trouble for ourselves when we fantasize about Angela Merkel as we masturbate, but we are hurting ourselves when we fantasize about scientific facts.

Incidentally, I doubt if the issue of who a man fantasizes about is meaningless. For example, I wonder if the men who like women with masculine features, such as Ann Coulter, are somewhat homosexual. Some people wonder if homosexual men have a fascination with Barbra Streisand. Imagine a database that listed all of the people that each of us fantasize about. Nobody yet knows how to interpret that type of information, but it would certainly help us understand our mind. Should I tell you who I am attracted to?

Getting back to the issue of genetics, people have a tendency to associate with, get married to, and reproduce with people who are similar to them. As a result, the people who oppose genetics are most likely to breed with a person who also opposes genetics, whereas the people who believe in genetics are more likely to breed with other people who believe in genetics.

The human race is evolving right now, and if we don't do something to control it, we are going to end up with some noticeably different races. The religious fanatics, for example, will create a race that is even less able to face reality. The people who enjoy alcohol and drugs will create a race that has an even stronger attraction to them. The idiots and mentally ill people will create a race that is so stupid and mentally ill that they cannot handle any of the complicated jobs of the future, and they depend entirely upon welfare, donations, churches, and inheritances.

That Nova documentary about dogs also pointed out that experiments show that dogs are capable of understanding what a human means when we point at an object. They tried teaching some chimpanzees the concept of pointing, but even with a lot of training, the chimpanzees could not understand the concept as well as a dog. The "surprising" conclusion was that this mental talent is due to the physical structure of the dogs brain, which in turn means that the talent is inherited, and that an animal cannot pick up this type of mental talent from its environment. These experiments provided more proof that the mental talents and limitations of an animal are due to its genetic qualities rather than its environment.

The Nova documentary came to the "surprising" conclusion that a dog's mental talents are inherited, and that some of those talents are similar to those of humans. Who is surprised to discover that humans and animals share the same physical and mental qualities? Our bodies and brains are just variations of one genetic blueprint.

Furthermore, animals that have similar environments or lifestyles will be more similar to one another than animals that are radically different. For example, all carnivores will have many similar mental and physical qualities, and all birds will have some similar mental and physical qualities.

In regards to a dog's ability to understand pointing, this is to be expected among all carnivores that hunt silently in packs. How is it possible for a group of stupid animals to hunt together in silence? As wolves wander around, each of them is looking for prey, but when they find a potential victim, they cannot bark to the others, or send a text message to one another. They have to silently sneak up on that animal. The only way the other animals will join in on the hunt is if they are occasionally looking around at what one another is doing. They must be constantly aware of where the other wolves are, and what the other wolves are doing. They must have the initiative to look around them and keep track of what the others are doing. They must also be able to recognize the posture and body language of one of their species so that they can determine when one of them has observed a potential victim, and they must also be able to determine which direction the animal is looking at, and whether he is looking at something close or far away.

A wolf's brain must do some complicated analyses. A wolf needs the ability to recognize the shape of another wolf, identify the pointed face on that shape, and look along an imaginary 3-D line from the center of its head until it figures out what that other wolf is looking at. Any animal species that develops the ability to hunt silently in packs will have an easier chance of learning what a human is focusing his attention on when we look at something or point at something. Since humans don't have a long, pointed face, it may be easier for dogs to understand us when we use our arm to point at an object, or if we put on a mask that has a long pointed nose.

Some people can accept the fact that genetics can explain animals and plants, but they have trouble believing that it applies to humans. One reason might be because many parents have produced children who do not have a close resemblance to their parents or their siblings. Every tomato plant resembles its parents extremely closely, and every poodle is almost identical to its parents, but humans are creating a tremendous variety of children. This can create the impression that we don't follow the same laws as the animals and plants.

The reason animals are so similar to their parents is because most animals live in a very small area, and they breed among a small group. Most animals avoid or fight with their neighbors rather than mingle with them. By comparison, at some point in human history, our ancestors began wandering around the planet. The end result was that human tribes were scattered everywhere. More importantly, they developed the ability to cooperate and form teams. The tribes would occasionally encounter their neighbors, but they would not always fight or avoid them. They would sometimes mingle and interbreed. Also, humans rape, kidnap, and take care of orphans.

Our behavioral characteristics have resulted in a lot different tribes interbreeding with each other. Our gene pool is a chaotic mix of possibly hundreds of races, and it's going to require quite a few generations of controlled reproduction to eliminate some of our crude and undesirable characteristics and create a more stable race.

When we design a new society, we must take genetics into account. We need to design our social systems to fit an intelligent monkey rather than Adam and Eve, and we must also restrict reproduction in order to increase the chances of producing children who are healthy, honest, and responsible. The people who refuse to face these issues should be considered as intellectually and/or emotionally unfit to participate in a new society.

Who would you take to Mars?

It might help you to understand how to create a new society if you consider the issues that are going to be faced by the organization, Mars One, that is currently planning on starting a colony on Mars. Regardless of whether their plan is realistic, I think it would be useful for you to consider the social problems that the Mars colony will face because it can give you some ideas of what you might want to do with our future here on the earth.

In a previous file I suggested that you imagine traveling to a planet in another solar system to start a new world. Since that concept is unrealistic, it might be more useful to imagine that the Mars One organization hires you to be their program director who is responsible for dealing with the people and the social issues. Other people will handle the technical issues of traveling to Mars and building the colony. Your job is to select people for the colony, and set up a social environment for them, including the government, economy, and social activities.

One of the first issues I want you to consider is immigration. Tens of thousands of people have already applied to be colonists on Mars, but you cannot take all of them, so who will you choose? How will you make decisions?

First, consider an unrealistic and extreme situation. Imagine if you ignored all of the people who were asking to go to Mars and you sent some helicopters around the planet to randomly pick up people, regardless of whether they were interested. Your Mars colony would then be a random sample of the earth's population.

It should be obvious that if you did such a thing, you would not create a successful colony. You would end up with a colony in which the people had no desire to work together or cooperate. They would speak different languages, practice different social customs, and follow conflicting religions. Since people have a tendency to associate with people who are similar to themselves, they would segregate into separate, independent, unfriendly groups.

To add to the problems, the majority of people would continue to hold grudges against one another. Some of the Africans would whine that their ancestors were slaves, for example, and some of the Scottish people would whine that their ancestors suffered from the English, and some of the Chinese would whine about abuse that their ancestors suffered from Koreans. If you were to transport these Indonesian teenagers to Mars, they would continue having the same gang fights that they have right now.

Putting a truly random sample of the human population on Mars would create a miniature version of the earth. It would not provide people with a more pleasant life. Every problem that we have here on the Earth would be seen on Mars. The Mars colony would be dominated by apathetic, selfish sheeple who don't care about anything except titillating their emotions, and those sheeple would allow crime networks and teenage gangs to run rampant on Mars.

Human life has advanced during the past few thousand years because some of us wanted improvements.

Furthermore, there would be no possible way for you to convince the people in your Mars colony to cooperate with one another, follow the same language, and keep their religions to themselves. The people on Mars would be just as "patriotic" as they are here on the earth. They would attack you for criticizing their particular religion, language, government, holidays, and clothing. They would want to follow their ancestors. They would want their lives to remain exactly as they are right now. They would refuse to abandon their culture and experiment with changes.

After a few decades of living on Mars, some groups of people would become wealthier, and they would likely use some of the poor people as a cheap source of factory workers, housekeepers, maids, and prostitutes.

Our mind remains the same as we change locations

If we were to transport some fish, dogs, snakes, birds, and tomato plants from the Earth to Mars, we would find that all of the creatures continue to behave in the exact same manner as they do on Earth. Although a lot of environmental factors can affect the behavior of an animal or plant, the physical location of a creature doesn't have any significant effect on its mind or body.

If there was a "universal GPS" system for the entire universe, we would find that each of us has a unique XYZ location in the universe. We would also find that our XYZ coordinates are changing continuously because the planet, solar system, and galaxy are moving. However, even though our physical location in the universe is constantly changing, our mind and body remain the same.

Transporting a human from the Earth to Mars is doing nothing but moving him from one XYZ coordinate to another. Regardless of which coordinates we send him to, he will continue to have the same personality, the same intellectual abilities and limitations, the same allergies, the same sleep disorders, the same bone structure, and the same memory. A person does not become more honest, intelligent, talented, responsible, athletic, or considerate simply by moving to a different XYZ coordinate.

This concept also applies to people who move around here on the earth. If some criminals from Britain emigrate to America, they will not become more honest simply by changing their XYZ coordinates. They will remain the same people with the same mental characteristics. If they could not properly pronounce the English language while they were in Britain, they are not going to be able to properly pronounce English when they are in America. If they had alcohol problems in Britain, they will have alcohol problems in America.

If we were to study the criminals who moved from Britain to America, we would find that some of them found an honest way to make a living in America, and they never again committed a crime. This can create the impression that moving to America can cause a criminal to become honest, but it's just an illusion.

Nobody, other than truly psychotic people, want to be a criminal; we want to impress other people. Therefore, if a criminal can find a method to achieve his goals honestly, he will do so. Some of the criminals who emigrated to America found an honest way to make a living because we have so much more land and resources, but they remained the same people with the same mental problems. Since their minds remained the same, when economic conditions changed, or when they changed their desires for money or fame, some of them reverted to committing crimes in order to achieve their goals.

If a man with an alcohol problem moves from one location to another, he will continue to have the same mental problem that caused him to become an alcoholic. If he moves to Saudi Arabia or Salt Lake City, where alcohol is scarce, he may remain sober, but that would not be because his mind has improved. It would be due to the scarcity of alcohol.

The significance of these concepts is that the people who travel to Mars will take with them whatever mental abilities and limitations that they have here on the earth. The passage through the Van Allen belts might destroy some of their brain cells, but it will not transform them into better people. In order for a colony on Mars to have more cooperation, less crime, less corruption, and less drug problems than the cities here on the earth, we must restrict the colony to people who have already displayed signs of having better behavior here on the earth.

An organization is a reflection of its members. The XYZ location of the organization does not determine how the people behave or treat one another. Humans are scattered all over the planet, but the behavior of the people is very similar regardless of their location. The people who believe that they will find a better life simply by moving to Mars are victims of the "grass is greener on the other side of the fence" fantasy.

People who are firm believers in the "grass is greener" theory are displaying an undesirable quality in this modern world, and it could have a disastrous effect on the Mars colony. Imagine a colony in which everybody has a strong attraction to the "grass is greener" theory. Whenever the colony experienced a problem, the people may jump to the conclusion that they need to split the colony into pieces, or move the colony, or start a new colony. They may never actually deal with their problems because they may assume that the solution is to move to the other side of the mountain.

In order to create a colony on Mars that truly provides humans with a better life, we have to accomplish two tasks:
1) We have to be able to analyze people, pass judgment on their mental qualities, and restrict immigration to the people who have shown evidence that they have a more advanced mind than the people who dominate the planet today.
2) We must develop a better government system, legal system, school system, and other social technology for that Mars colony.

It is important to note that if we have the ability to accomplish those two tasks, then we don't need to go to Mars in order to create a better life for ourselves. We could create a new city right here on the earth. Furthermore, we can do this right now. We don't have to wait for more advanced rocket technology.

Creating a better life for ourselves doesn't require that we leave the earth. We can create new cities right here on the earth, and right now, but the only way a new city will provide a better life for its residents is if we restrict immigration to people who are "better quality", and if we develop better social systems. How do we determine who among us is "better quality"? How do we develop better social systems? Nobody can truly answer those questions. We have to be willing to experiment with our future.

We must control people

We want to believe that crime, divorce, loneliness, unwanted children, corruption, blackmail, teenage gangs, suicide, and other problems can be solved without affecting any of our lives, but that would be possible only if those problems were the result of inanimate objects, the devil, a lack of oil, or poverty. Unfortunately, our social problems are the result of people's decisions; people's behavior; people's minds. Therefore, the only way to eliminate these problems is to find a way to make people behave better. As I've described in other files, there are only two methods available to us today: 1) eliminate the people who cannot behave properly, and 2) find ways of helping people to become more productive members of the organization.

In some of my other files I've mentioned possible ways of helping people become better citizens, such as eliminating our free enterprise system so that instead of encouraging people to exploit one another for profit, we encourage people to look for ways to improve society.

In order to improve something, we must look critically at it.

Creating a better society is not going to be easy. It requires that we find the emotional strength to experiment with our our lives and future. We must be willing to experiment with our economic system, social affairs, holiday celebrations, school system, and government. We have to figure out how to provide ourselves with a social environment that reduces hatred, jealousy, envy, and loneliness, and encourages beneficial competitions, cooperation, and stable relationships.

We need to experiment with our school system so that we can produce children who have the skills necessary to get jobs, and the knowledge to fit into society, and the social affairs necessary to meet other people and form stable relationships. We also need to experiment with our meals and recreational activities to help people maintain their health. The people who oppose experimentation are inhibiting progress. They are not patriotic!

Consider the social problems of a Mars colony

Even though you may not want to live on Mars, I think that it would be very useful for you to consider the social and economic problems that they would face. For example, consider the issue of drugs, such as alcohol, marijuana, Vicodin, date rape drugs, poppers, and steroids. Will the people on Mars promote alcohol? Are they going to put people in jail for selling or using marijuana, steroids, or other drugs? How will people on Mars deal with neighbors that dislike one another and get into fights, such as Rodriguez and Danaher? Will they have a trial to determine who should be punished?

Will gambling or prostitution be legal? Will they have strip clubs? Will the government of Mars have lotteries? Will they allow pets, and if so, what will their policy be for unwanted pets that have been abandoned by their owners and are roaming around in the colony? Their living conditions will be cramped, so what will they do with dogs that bark incessantly? Will they require the vocal cords be cut out of dogs?

A very significant issue on Mars is reproduction. A Mars colony must be designed for a certain number of people, and they will have a limited ability to produce food, water, and air. They must control their population growth, but how are they going to do that? Will they limit each person to a certain number of children? Will they allow lesbian couples to get pregnant?

The people involved with the Mars One project posted a warning that nobody yet knows whether it is safe to have children on Mars, so they write: "Mars One will therefore strongly advise the settlement habitants not to attempt to have children". How many men and women are going to care that they "strongly advise" against having babies? The management of the Mars One project is not providing a sensible policy for this problem. No nation on Earth has been able to stop adults or teenagers from having sex and getting pregnant. The Chinese government is struggling to control their population growth, but many of their citizens are fighting with them.

Will the people on Mars behave any better than the people on earth in regards to reproduction? It all depends on who those people are. If the people on Mars are typical humans, then there will occasionally be unwanted teenage and adult pregnancies; there will be Catholics and Mormons who fight the use of birth control; some families will want as many as 21 children; and some women will take fertility pills in order to produce sextuplets and become famous.

Women have intense cravings for babies, and men have cravings for sex. We cannot expect people to disregard those cravings. We can't even stop men from raping women here on the earth. Some fathers rape their own daughters. How are we going to stop rape and pregnancy on Mars?

Some birds behave like humans

Incidentally, there are some documentaries that I think provide some interesting and amusing insights into the behavior of men and women. Specifically, there is a documentary about the Harpy eagles in South America, and this documentary about Falcons in North America. The relationships between the male and female birds in those two species reminds me of the typical human marriage.

With some animals, both the males and females take care of the babies and hunt for food, but those two bird species behave more like humans. After the female lays eggs, she spends almost all of her time protecting her eggs. When the babies hatch, she spends her time protecting the babies and feeding them. The male spends every day hunting for food. When he brings food home, the female takes it, and then he has to find more food. He doesn't get to relax, and he doesn't get any affection or thanks from the female. He doesn't spend time with the children, either. Neither the children nor the female have any interest in him. All they want are the mice, rabbits, or whatever he catches. The male spends his entire life hunting for food, and then giving it to the female. He is essentially a slave of the female, and she is essentially a slave for her children.

It reminds me of some of the relationships that I've seen in which the man spends his life bringing money, gifts, and other items to his wife, but his wife doesn't have much of an interest in him. She is focused on her children, and she regards her husband as a provider of food and financial support.

Another interesting aspect of these two bird species is that the female enjoys "staying at home" with her children as long as the male provides enough food. She shows no interest in becoming "liberated" from the "housework" and joining the male in "working". However, if the male doesn't provide enough food, she becomes upset. This reminds me of the way women, if they are properly taken care of, are happy to be in a submissive role and take care of the children, but if they are unhappy for some reason, such as having an incompetent husband who wastes money on alcohol or gambling, they become upset, liberated, or rebellious.

In the documentary about the Eagles, once the male was gone for many days, and the female and her babies became very hungry. She became so upset that she got out of the nest and wandered out along the tree branch and began squawking. She was apparently yelling the bird equivalent of, "Where are you? The children are hungry! You've been gone for a week! When are you going to bring some food home? I should have listened to my mother and chosen that other male!"

That female Eagle reminds me of the women who complain that their husbands are not bringing home enough money, or that they need a larger house.

In the documentary of the falcon, there was a time when the male was not bringing enough food home, perhaps because he was sometimes sitting nearby on a rock and preening his feathers rather than hunting. The female and her babies became so hungry at one point that she decided to leave the nest and find food. If birds could talk, I suppose she would have made angry, bitter remarks that resemble those from liberated women who complain that they have to get a job to help their lazy husband support the children.

The relationship between men and women is not much more advanced than that between male and female Falcons or Eagles. When a human girl becomes a teenager, she becomes very flirtatious, just like the female birds. From her point of view, she is looking for a man who loves her, but from the point of view of nature, she is putting herself on display and putting up resistance to the boys to force them to prove that they have the physical strength, stamina, and desire to become a successful father.

In a species in which the female raises the babies, the males do not have a strong attraction to babies. The only way a female of that species can successfully raise a family is if she can find a male who has such a strong attraction to her that he will devote his entire life to providing her with food and protection. Therefore, the females of those species must put up resistance to the males in order to find one who has such an intense craving for females that they will put a lot of effort and time into competing for her. She is essentially looking for a male who will become her devoted slave.

The feminists claim that men are abusive to women, and there are certainly a lot of men who are indeed abusive to women, children, animals, and other men. However, a man's emotions want him to serve a woman. This may be why men do not think it is strange to serve a queen. Men are very arrogant compared to women, but if we were truly sexist creatures who want to abuse women, would we tolerate a queen?

If people would lose their paranoia about being observed, and if they would stop being embarrassed about their qualities, then people could be more honest about their fantasies, and that could help us understand our emotions. If we could watch women's fantasies on television, I think we would discover that virtually every young woman spends a lot of time fantasizing about becoming the center of attention as men fight over her and beg her for marriage. If we could watch the fantasies of men, I do not think we would see many men fantasizing about women fighting over them, or begging them for marriage. Women are titillated when a man gets on his hands and knees and begs for marriage, but how many men would be titillated by a woman who behaves like that?

It is important for us to understand our emotions because that knowledge allows us to design our job conditions, social affairs, holiday celebrations, schools, and other social technology, to fit our emotions, and it allows us to know how to control our inappropriate emotions. It also allows us to make decisions on what we want the human race to evolve into. By selecting the people who show the qualities we want for the future generations, the human race will become better adapted to this modern world.

Understanding our emotions can help both men and women form more stable, pleasant relationships. This requires both men and women stop putting on phony images of what they are and let scientists see exactly what they think and feel, and what differences there are between us. For example, I suspect that we will discover that women are naturally difficult to please in order to put pressure on the men to work. The women in prehistoric times were never satisfied with what their husbands did. They would compare their life to that of other people, and they would demand more food, more furs, a better house, and more tools.

We could describe the attitude of women as "constantly whining for more". However, in prehistoric times, this would have put pressure on the men to continue working. The men could not relax, and they could not spend much time playing with children. The adult men were under pressure to work. Women do not admire men who lounge around during the day. They admire the men who work and give them gifts.

During prehistoric times, this quality of women was very useful, but in our era, it is absurd. The women in the wealthy nations are putting pressure on their husbands to provide them with ridiculously large houses and absurd quantities of material items. With today's technology, we can easily provide everybody with the basic necessities. There is no sense in anybody whining for a bigger house, or for more material items. The human race has to evolve from focusing on the collection of material items to focusing on activities, life, people, and society.

The same concept applies to children; they also have a whiny attitude. This is not a coincidence or a mistake. Genetic traits develop by accident, but the qualities that persist through the generations are those that have a benefit. If a trait has no benefit, it will either slowly change through time in a haphazard manner, or it will vanish. Every trait that persists through the generations is truly valuable to us.

The children of all animals could be described as "whiny", and this is proof that it is a very valuable trait to all animals. It should be obvious that this trait is intended to put pressure on the adults to take care of the children. During prehistoric times, children needed to be whiny to put pressure on their ignorant, monkey-like ancestors to take care of them, but in our modern era, we don't need this. Children today are whining for all sorts of toys, food items, and activities that they don't need, or which are dangerous.

I suspect that future generations will eventually become tired of the whining, and that they start breeding humans to be less whiny, eventually creating children and adults who never whine about anything. If we could live in that era, we would find that it is significantly more pleasant to be a parent, and to be married.

If teenage girls can understand why they flirt with boys, and if they can control their emotions, then they will stop putting boys into competition for gifts and entertainment, and they will stop looking for a boy who behaves like a devoted slave. The girls will realize that they need to focus on which of the boys will be compatible with them in regards to living together and spending leisure time together.

Likewise, the boys need to understand that their emotions cause them to look for a pretty girl because in prehistoric times, the prettiest women were those in the best health and the most talented. A prehistoric woman who could not properly groom herself or make nice clothing would not be able to take care of children. Today the boys have to look at more than the physical beauty of a woman. They have to be concerned about what they are going to do with a woman during their leisure time, and at night.

Also, boys need to realize that their craving to get on their hands and knees and serve a woman is no longer appropriate. Raising children is becoming increasingly easy, and if we switch to a society in which food and housing is free, men won't have to spend their entire lives struggling to bring food and gifts home to their wife. Women will not need men for basic necessities or childcare. Women can ignore the issue of food and housing when they select a man. Men and women will be able to form relationships based upon compatibility rather than on sex or financial support.

The crude relationship between men and women was both satisfying and stable during prehistoric times. The men spent the day looking for food and taking care of their families, and the women spend the day taking care of children and socializing. In the evening the men and women would have enjoyed spending time together.

Prehistoric women would not have considered their children to be "whiny" because the children cried only for basic necessities. The children did not demand toys or video games. Furthermore, parents were never irritated by retarded or sickly children because nature killed them. Raising children in that era was easier in certain respects than it is today.

Don't underestimate the significance of the death of sickly and defective children. It would have created a noticeably more pleasant society of self-sufficient people. As with wild animals, the children who made it to adulthood were those who were healthy and capable of taking care of themselves. None of our prehistoric ancestors survived through inheritances, crime, investments, nepotism, or donations. Some men were more talented than others, but they all would have been able to take care of themselves and their family. The only time the men had trouble finding food is when the weather was bad, or when the human population was rising excessively.

With all of the men in good health and self-sufficient, none of the women would have whined about their lazy, alcoholic, worthless husband. The prehistoric women were also in better health and more self-sufficient, as a group, compared to those of today. A prehistoric man would not have been irritated when his wife whined for more food, furs, or tools because he wanted those things, also. It would have inspired him do a better job. His wife did not whine for diamond jewelry, mansions, or hundreds of pairs of shoes. He would have considered his wife to be working for the same goals that he was working for. He would have regarded his wife as a team member, or a partner, who was working with him to raise a family. He would have been proud to provide his wife with food and material items, not bitter that he was wasting his life trying to please a spoiled bitch with absurd quantities of worthless items.

Our prehistoric ancestors didn't have many leisure activities or other issues to argue about. They had no conflicts over religion, money, gambling, alcohol, sports, television, or politics. Also, most of them died before they were 50 years old, so they didn't have the age-related problems that are common today, such as frustrated old women who no longer have children to take care of, or men who have lost interest in sex, or grandparents who treat their adult children as babies.

Human emotions developed for that primitive era, not for our technically advanced era. As I described in other documents, in order for marriages to be stable in our modern world, we need to understand and control our emotions so that we can make intelligent decisions about who to marry, and how to treat our spouse. If we foolishly follow our crude emotions, we will behave like primitive savages, and that will result in lots of arguments and abuse.

Will people on Mars use the free enterprise system?

Getting back to the Mars colony, will it operate on the same type of free enterprise system that America is using today? For example, are the people going to have to pay for their own spacesuits? When a woman gets pregnant, she will need a maternity spacesuit, or she will have to remain in protected areas until the pregnancy is over. Will every woman be responsible for purchasing maternity spacesuits? What will the women do with maternity suits when they no longer need them? Will the colony provide thrift stores or garage sales for people to sell their unneeded spacesuits? Will parents be responsible for purchasing spacesuits for their children? What will parents do with suits that their children outgrow?

Will the government provide meals for free, or will everybody have to buy their own kitchen, purchase their own food, and cook their own meals?

Will businesses, churches, and nonprofit groups be allowed to do telemarketing or door-to-door sales? How are they going to regulate the neon signs, advertisements, and billboards that businesses use to advertise themselves? Will they allow businesses on Mars to use sexual titillation in advertisements?

Will the Mars colony allow people to have unlimited incomes? Will they allow billionaires to have gigantic, luxurious mansions with dozens of servants while the rest of the population lives in extremely cramped, simple homes?

Their living areas will be cramped, and so they're not going to have lots of wall space for pictures or decorations. How do they decide on the style of art and architecture? Will the Mars colony be decorated in the Andy Warhol style, the Pablo Picasso style, or the Ikea style?

The cramped conditions will also make it easier for men to "accidentally" rub up against women (and men, if they are homosexual), and it will make it easier for men to fondle women in crowded areas. What are the people on Mars going to do about those issues?

Water will be extremely scarce, so will the government provide and ration the water, or will private businesses sell it? Will they have coin-operated vending machines that sell bottled water? In some areas of America, when a city was rationing water during a drought, some wealthy people deliberately used excessive amounts of water and paid the fines that were imposed on them. Will they allow wealthy people on Mars to waste water?

The Mars one project is attracting people from around the world, so it is conceivable that the initial colony is dominated by Europeans rather than Americans. If the colony is dominated by people from the Netherlands, will they want to continue worshiping their King? Will they want statues of him on Mars, and pictures of him on the walls of their communal areas? Will the people from England complain that they want photos of Queen Elizabeth on the walls?

Will the Mars colony use the same bank accounts and credit cards that we use on the earth, or will they develop their own financial system and require all of the colonists and tourists to switch over to their particular style of money and credit cards? If they create their own credit card companies, will they allow the companies to take a percentage of their transactions, or will they demand that the credit card companies charge sensible fees?

Sewage treatment and recycling will be a critical activity on Mars. Will the government handle these problems, or will free enterprise provide the plumbing, sewage, and garbage services? People on the earth frequently dump chemicals into the sewer, thereby interfering with sewage treatment, and they often dump their trash wherever they please, and some people flush trash down the toilet. What are the people on Mars going to do about such irresponsible people?

Who is going to do the "dirty work" on Mars, such as picking up trash, working on assembly lines, and providing childcare? Will they bring poor people from the Earth to use as cheap labor?

What will happen if a woman gets pregnant on Mars but does not want the child? Are they going to have abortions on Mars? Or will they have orphanages for unwanted children? Or are they going to fight over the issue and stage demonstrations, as they are doing here on the earth?

What will they do when a child is mentally or physically defective, such as a Siamese twin or a midget? Will parents of defective children be responsible for purchasing special spacesuits to fit their deformed children and paying for whatever medical care their child needs? Or will their government help parents deal with some or all of those expenses? Are they going to design bathrooms and cafeterias that have wheelchair access? Or will they kill their deformed children? Or will they ship the deformed and unwanted children to the earth?

We have no idea what will happen to children who are raised on a planet with a significantly lower level of gravity. Perhaps the children become thinner and taller. If we create a Mars colony to fit the physical size of people here on the earth, and if the children on Mars become significantly taller, then the children will not be able to walk down the hallways, fit into the beds, or sit properly in chairs or vehicles. Who is going to deal with such problems? The government or free enterprise?

Will the Mars colony have their own, independent government, or will they choose to be under the control of one of the earth governments? If they create their own government, what agencies will they create? If they create an FDA, will the residents of Mars be such passive, apathetic sheep that they don't care if the FDA prohibits them from growing hemp for fiber and paper?

Are they going to bring lawyers to Mars to provide them with legal assistance when they have divorces or disputes? Or will they leave the lawyers on the earth and communicate through email whenever they need to purchase legal advice? If they bring lawyers to Mars, are they going to provide the lawyers with extremely high incomes, as we do in America?

It would be difficult to find an organization on the earth in which there is no crime. Employees of a business will sometimes steal from the business, or steal from other employees, or fondle one another, or put video cameras in the toilet. What are the people on Mars going to do about crime? Are they going to have jails or other type of punishments? Or will they send the criminals to the earth?

Even if the Mars colony chooses to be under the control of one of the earth governments, they are going to need some type of leadership for themselves. How are they going to select their leadership? Are they going to let every adult vote? Will they have any restrictions on who can be a voter or who can be a candidate? Will they advocate a two-party political system? Are they going to vote in secrecy? Will they use paper ballots or electronic voting machines? Are they going to provide the people with the right to demonstrate when they disapprove of their government? Or will they experiment with a more sensible method for the people to discuss and resolve their differences?

Are the people on Mars going to use the metric system or the Imperial system? Will they use clocks that operate on a 12 hour cycle, 24 hour cycle, or will they design a clock and calendar that fits Mars?

How are they going to deal with the issue of "libel"? If I was living in the Mars colony and somebody complained that he wanted some of my information to be censored, how would they deal with the complaint? What type of legal system will they have?

What will the people on Mars do if somebody becomes obese? Will they design special space suits for the obese people? Will they provide special beds, vehicles, and furniture for them? If they suffer a temporary shortage of food, will they make everybody suffer equally, or will they tell the obese people to suffer the most since they can more easily survive without food?

How are they going to deal with age-related problems? Conservatives complain about government programs, such as Social Security and Medicare. They want businesses and individuals to handle retirement and medical issues. What will the people on Mars do?

When a colonist arrives on Mars, will he be on his own to find a job? Will he have to visit one business and government agency after the next, and fill out one job application after the next? Or will the government take a more active role in training people and helping them to find jobs? Will they provide different working conditions for women who are pregnant or who have young children? Will they have different working conditions for older people?

Conservatives also whine about public schools. Will the Mars colony have public schools, private schools, or both? Will their schools mimic those on the earth, or will they create their own school system? Will students graduate from the Mars University with enormous credit card debt and virtually no useful skills?

What subjects will they teach their children in school? Will they teach them that Arabs attacked America on 9/11, and that the World Trade Center towers fell down because of fire? Are they going to teach their children that the Apollo astronauts landed on the moon six different times? Are they going to teach their children that the Nazis put 6 million Jews into gas chambers and ovens?

Will the people on Mars rent apartments, or purchase homes? Will they have real estate agents that take a percentage of a home's purchase price?

Since the atmosphere of Mars is very thin, the Mars colony will be more susceptible to meteors, so will each person be responsible for purchasing "meteor insurance" from private insurance companies? Will each person also be responsible for purchasing his own "cosmic ray medical insurance"? Or will they provide some type of "Obamacare"?

Will everybody on Mars have a different and secretive salary? Will there be unions, and if so, will they resolve disputes by staging walkouts? Will the people on Mars allow the wealthy people to pass their wealth to their children or ex-spouse, or will they have restrictions on inheritances or divorce settlements?

"You have the freedom to choose your own path!"

When our primitive ancestors wanted to wander to a new land, or split into two tribes, they didn't make any plans about where they would go, or what their social structure would be, or what their holiday celebrations would be. They simply picked up their furs and tools, and started walking. They had no idea where they were going. They didn't have to make plans because no matter where they went, life would be exactly the same. All they were doing was changing locations, not changing the manner in which they live or trying to create a new society from a mixture of different groups of people.

The people planning a Mars colony are behaving like primitive savages.They think that they can pick up some tools and material items, and then wander off to Mars without any plans on what they are going to do once they get there. However, they are not simply moving to a different location on the earth and continuing the life that they have right now. They are moving to a radically different environment, and they are trying to create a new society with people from around the world who follow different languages, religions, and customs. They cannot behave like primitive savages. They must become modern humans.

The people who are planning the mission to Mars are fully aware that they need to deal with an enormous number of social issues, but as of 11 July 2013, they have no intention of dealing with any of them. They write:
"To a large extent, once they are on Mars the inhabitants will be on their own when it comes to deciding how to organize themselves..."

So, after the people arrive on Mars, they are free to figure out by themselves how to create a government system, school system, retirement system, economic system, holiday celebrations, abortion policy, etc. The people signing up for the Mars mission might enjoy the concept of being free to choose their own future, but people here on the earth do not have the emotional or intellectual ability to choose their future, so why should we assume that a group of people on Mars will be able to do it? If the people in that colony are just a random sample of the people that we find here on the earth, then the people on Mars will be constantly fighting with each other over abortion, guns, religion, and every other issue.

In regards to religion, the Mars One project "encourages religious freedom". That may create the impression that the project managers are wonderful people who want to provide the colony with freedom, but it is actually just an excuse to do nothing about the complex and very serious issue of religion. The project managers are simply pushing the problem of religion onto the people who travel to Mars. Those people will then have to argue among themselves about what to do about religious issues.

Are the people on Mars going to celebrate Christmas, Easter, or Hanukkah? If they celebrate Christmas, will they decorate the city with Santa Claus, baby Jesus, and reindeer? If they produce their own money, will it contain such messages as, "In God we trust"? Will their schools encourage children to pray to some god? Will they teach evolution or creationism? Will they allow religious schools on Mars? Will they build churches on Mars and provide homes and support for church officials, or will they consider churches to be a waste of resources? Will they allow television evangelists to live and operate on Mars?

When the leaders of society tell their people that they have "religious freedom", the leaders are doing nothing. It is equivalent to the American federal government officials announcing that a particular problem is the responsibility of the state governments. For the European readers of this article who don't understand that analogy, it would be equivalent to your Queen claiming that a particular problem is the responsibility of the King. This is a trick to push a problem onto somebody else. It is not providing freedom, or a solution to a problem. It should not be regarded as an intelligent policy.

Since everybody in the world today has grown up with religious freedom, it may seem strange that I criticize this freedom as an excuse to do nothing, so consider how this concept applies to other issues, such as marriage. Imagine a government official who doesn't want to argue with people over the issue of marriage, and so he announces that everybody in his nation has "marital freedom". Imagine everybody being able to choose for themselves what type of marriage they want, and all other issues related to marriage. And let's go further, let's assume that this submissive leader doesn't want to argue with people who are trying to become doctors, surgeons, or dentists, and so he provides people with "medical freedom" so that anybody can practice whatever type of medicine they please, and in any manner they please.

We love the idea of having the freedom to do as we please, but when we give a large group of people the freedom to do as they please on an issue that has no right or wrong, we can be certain that they will develop conflicting and contradictory policies. This would be acceptable if people were willing to tolerate differences of opinion, but people do not tolerate differences very well. Humans are like animals. We have a very strong emotional craving to form tribes of people who are similar to ourselves, and we are extremely suspicious and fearful of people who are different.

Consider how this issue applies to food. If the American people were provided with "food freedom", then it is very likely that each of us would end up eating slightly different foods. This would be acceptable if everybody would eat what they want and let other people eat what they want, but millions of people will not tolerate somebody who is eating differently. There are lots of vegetarians, for example, who are trying to stop people from eating meat, and there are some people who eat meat but will not tolerate people who eat certain types of meat, such as horses, dolphins, or dogs.

A certain percentage of the population is too much like an animal to live in a society in which the people are provided with "food freedom". An even larger percentage of the population is unable to tolerate "religious freedom."

Animals are frightened of things that are different, and humans are not much more advanced than the animals. We have a difficult time tolerating people who are different. We want other people to conform to us. We want them to eat the same food, wear the same clothing, follow the same hairstyles, and play the same music.

There is no right or wrong to social technology. We must design policies according to their advantages and disadvantages to society. What is the advantage to society of providing people with religious freedom? I cannot think of any. However, I can see lots of disadvantages. For example, it encourages people to become arrogant jerks who believe that they have the magic ability to figure out the proper beliefs about religion, gods, the universe, and life. These arrogant jerks develop conflicting religions, and then they get into idiotic arguments over an issue that has absolutely no importance to anybody's life.

We are attracted to the concept of freedom, but people in a modern society cannot have a lot of freedom. Before we provide people with a freedom, we have to pass judgment on whether providing that freedom will give us benefits that outweigh the disadvantages. We are not individual savages any longer. We are team members. We are gears in a transmission. Modern society must control the behavior of its citizens so that we cooperate with one another and treat one another with respect, rather than fight and irritate one another. We should not encourage people to become arrogant jerks who push their ideas on their children, spouse, and society.

No advanced nation is providing its citizens with "clothing freedom". All of us must follow a lot of arbitrary restrictions in regards to clothing. We have the freedom to dress in any manner when we are inside our own home, but once we go out in public, we have to follow the guidelines set by society. Furthermore, some organizations add additional restrictions. For example, some restaurants, museums, and theaters narrow down your choices of clothing, and some businesses demand their employees wear certain types of clothing, gloves, shoes, or hats.

Before we provide people with clothing freedom, we need to pass judgment on whether that freedom provides us with benefits that outweigh the disadvantages. What is the advantage to having clothing freedom? I cannot see how our lives will improve when we have the freedom to follow our own clothing styles. The citizens are not going to suffer if society imposes restrictions on clothing. Citizens do not benefit from clothing freedom.

There are a lot of advantages to restricting our clothing freedom, such as ensuring that our clothing and shoes are safe and practical, and that clothing is different for men and women to make it easy for us to distinguish between the two. There are some people who want men to be able to wear women's clothing, but what is the advantage to that? It creates confusion and awkwardness.

Unfortunately, no society is yet designing clothing restrictions. Every society is allowing clothing styles to drift aimlessly and haphazardly. The end result is that many of our clothing rules are idiotic or irrational. For example, I would say that businesses are putting pressure on men to wear excessive amounts of clothing on hot summer days, and most women's shoes are impractical. I also think that most societies have excessive paranoia of nudity at swimming areas, while promoting sexual titillation on television, in offices, and in schools.

The same concept applies to religious freedom. How does a society benefit by providing the people with religious freedom? I cannot see any benefits. Providing people with religious freedom results in arrogant jerks who fight incessantly, so it would be better to restrict religious freedom. When people are in their home, they can practice whatever religious policies they please, but when they go out in public, they must follow the guidelines that are set by society. Of course, in order for a society to restrict religious freedom, the leaders of society need to design rules that have intelligent justification, as opposed to what we see in the Middle Ages during which Kings and Queens would simply impose their particular religious beliefs on people.

If we define "religion" as a person's belief about how the universe was created, and how we should behave and treat one another, then everybody is religious. Everybody has an opinion on these issues. The most significant difference between us is that at one extreme, some people keep their opinions to themselves, and at the other extreme, some people organize into groups.

It is beneficial when people discuss their opinions on the creation of the universe, and how people should behave, but it is destructive for people to form organized religions and try to force their opinions on other people. I also consider it destructive to allow organized religions to put pressure on their members to donate money. I would describe this as a form of extortion.

Therefore, I recommend that we prohibit all forms of organized religions, churches, and missionaries. I would not allow any government agency, school, business, or other organization to promote any type of religious material. Religion would have to be an "opinion", not an organization or a "fact". There would not be any religious material in holidays, either. People would have the freedom to discuss any issue they please, and they would have the freedom to do whatever they wanted inside their home, but when they went out into public, they would have a responsibility to keep their discussions peaceful and allow other people to believe whatever they want.

I would not provide people with the freedom to push any of their opinions in schools, on money, during holiday celebrations, or public artwork. I would not provide people with the freedom to promote their opinions on T-shirts, either. I think that allowing people to promote religious, political, and other opinions on T-shirts is encouraging people to become arrogant jerks who think that they are superior to other people. I think it encourages destructive attitudes and fights. It is acceptable for people to have decorative artwork on their clothing, and it makes sense for some employees to have their name and organization on their clothing so that we can identify them, but nobody should promote their personal opinions on their clothing.

The managers of the Mars One project want to provide the people on Mars with religious freedom, but it would be more sensible to create some guidelines for religion, and require everybody who goes to Mars to be willing to follow those guidelines. The people who dislike the guidelines need to be told to create their own colony.

The Mars One project managers also want the people on Mars to figure out for themselves what their government and other social systems will be, but this policy allows the people who arrive first in the colony to get control of it and determine its fate. Everybody who arrives later in time will be less likely to have influence.

If people like me were the first to arrive in the colony, then we would outlaw all organized religions, for example, and we would prevent future immigrants from changing that policy. If instead, a group of religious fanatics are the first residents to the Mars colony, they will set a completely different path for the colony. If British people who worship Queen Elizabeth are the dominant members of the colony, then it will become Her Majesty's Mars Colony.

By not determining ahead of time what the colony will be, the initial residents of the colony will make all of the decisions, and it is very likely that they will conspire with one another to prevent new arrivals from gaining influence in society. The Mars colony will be whatever the initial members want it to be, which would be acceptable if they were truly wonderful humans, but those initial members are more likely to be mentally ill. Who else would want to leave the earth and join a group of strangers from different cultures in an unbelievably dangerous environment without any idea of how they are going to function as a society?

Mars is more dangerous and brutal than the Antarctic, and it is completely out of touch with sources of food and supplies. Would you be willing to join a group of strangers from around the world who want to start a colony in Antarctica? And imagine if that group had no idea of how they would make the colony function. If you are not willing to give up your home, job, and life to join an unorganized group in the Antarctic, then you are not going to join such a group on Mars.

Our crude emotions can fool us into thinking that life on Mars will be exciting, but Mars is essentially a radioactive ball of extremely cold dirt. Sunshine is warm and bright on the earth, but it is cool and dim on Mars. We cannot walk around on Mars except in stiff, bulky spacesuits. The bulky clothing that people need in Antarctica would seem comfortable by comparison. The most exciting tourist attractions on Mars will be of dirt, rocks, and frozen carbon dioxide. The most barren of Earth's deserts will seem like a garden of Eden by comparison.

The Mars colony may attract the type of people who sailed on the Mayflower to America; namely, the "wretched refuse" and "huddled masses" who want to get away from the ridicule, police, and insults. It may be dominated by alcoholics, religious fanatics, prostitutes, pedophiles, and unskilled idiots. The Mars colony might resemble the Pilgrim colony. The pilgrims died in large numbers because of their inability to care for themselves, and perhaps partly because they wasted some of their time and resources on religious activities. It is possible that the Mars colonists will also have so many emotional and intellectual disorders that a large percentage of them dies, also.

Face reality! The pilgrims were losers

Americans have a variety of excuses for why the first settlers to America suffered so much, but a serious analysis of the people who left England during the 1600s shows that they were the losers of English society. For example, when John Smith helped to establish and supervise Jamestown in 1607, he had to deal with people who were not interested in working or farming. They were more interested in the fantasy of finding gold. As they began to suffer starvation, Smith had to announce to them, "he who shall not work, shall not eat".

Later, in 1620, the pilgrims landed in Plymouth, Massachusetts. Their plan was to create a socialist society in which nobody owned any land, and everybody shared in the farming chores, and they all shared the food and material items. Unfortunately, they had tremendous difficulties in providing themselves with food, and within months they were becoming sick, and soon about half their population had died. Rather than blame the pilgrims for their deaths, some Americans, such as Jeff Sanders, put the blame on "socialism".

Socialism cannot be blamed for the deaths of the pilgrims, or the deaths that occurred in Russia during the 20th century. I have pointed out in other files that socialism is an unrealistic system for humans, but you must understand why socialism is inappropriate in order to understand why the pilgrims died.

Socialism requires people to become team members who work for the benefit of the organization. There is nothing inherently wrong with that style of government. However, it will work only if every person in the organization has the emotional desires and intellectual ability to become a contributing team member. It requires everybody to constantly be thinking of what would be best for the group, and it requires people who can discuss issues and compromise on policies. It also requires people who are willing to share material wealth in a fair manner.

Unfortunately, the majority of people are too selfish, arrogant, and apathetic to use socialism. Most people want to spend their entire lives titillating their emotions. They are not interested in thinking about what is best for society, or considering how their actions are going to affect other people. They do not want to be "team members"; they want to be "special". They don't want to truly share items, either. They want to be wealthier than other people. They want to be the center of attention, and they want to dominate the group. They want other people to follow their views on religion, abortion, and euthanasia. They do not want to discuss anything or compromise on policies.

Socialism cannot work with the majority of humans, but by carefully selecting people who have the qualities necessary for socialism, then a variation of socialism will indeed be a success. We could describe a corporation as a variation of socialism. The employees do not own their office area, desk, or computer. The employees share all of the land, equipment, and resources of the business. They do not have to pay for their electricity or their sewage. They are team members who work together for the benefit of the organization. If the team is successful, then every employee benefits. In our free enterprise system, some of the employees benefit more than others, but even with discrepancies in income, the employees are following a variation of socialism.

A military is even more similar to a socialist society. The sailors on a submarine, for example, own almost nothing and share almost everything, including the air they breathe and the beds they sleep in. They are team members who work for the benefit of the entire group.

A submarine is perhaps the best analogy to what a Mars colony would be like. A Mars colony will be as cramped and dangerous as a submarine. The lives of both groups of people are dependent upon technically advanced equipment and protective shields, and so both groups must consist of members who have the skills and desires necessary to monitor and maintain all of that equipment and shielding. Neither group can tolerate people who are parasitic, sloppy, irresponsible, selfish, arrogant, dishonest, or destructive.

If a person cannot be a successful team member on a submarine, I would not send him to a Mars colony. Actually, if I was going to send people to start a Mars colony, I would recruit people from the military who have already proven that they have the capability to handle brutal and life-threatening conditions, and I would ensure that they have already proven that they can work effectively as team members. Some of the people who work on offshore drilling rigs for long periods of time might also be capable of forming a successful Mars colony.

The reason variations of socialism can work for a business and a military is that both businesses and militaries are willing to follow the philosophy of evicting people who cannot contribute, or who are destructive. If the people at Plymouth and Jamestown had evicted the misfits and troublemakers, then their colonies would have been a success. However, if they had evicted the people who were not contributing, they would have evicted virtually everybody. Only a few of them seemed interested in becoming team members and doing work.

Most of the colonists were the defective people of England who were having trouble surviving in life. The aspect of socialism that they were attracted to was the concept of sharing other people's food and material items. They were not attracted to the idea of becoming a team member who worked each day for the benefit of the group.

Socialism has been a failure everywhere in the world because most of the people who are attracted to it are defective people who are trying to become parasites. Socialism will work only if the people are truly interested in becoming team members, and only if they have the skills necessary to truly contribute to the group, and only if they have the emotional ability to evict the people who cannot fit in.

The Mars One colony might be another pilgrim disaster

A lot of us like to fantasize about traveling into space or visiting Mars, but not many of us would actually abandon our home and life and make the trip to Mars, especially not with a group of strangers from around the world who have no plans on how they are going to make it successful. If the Mars One project creates a colony by picking from people who are applying through the Internet, it is conceivable that the colony becomes full of mentally defective people who are similar to those pilgrims in Plymouth.

The proper way to create a successful colony is to first create the basic social technology of the colony, and then restrict immigration to the people who will be happy with that type of colony, and ensure that the colony has people with the necessary desires and skills to make the society function.

Unfortunately, because we provide everybody with secrecy, it is difficult for us to analyze people and determine if they have the necessary qualities for a Mars colony. Businesses and roommates suffer from this problem, also. They regularly encounter people who lie about their education, job history, drug use, criminal background, and mental disorders simply so that they can get a job or be accepted as a roommate. We can be certain that some of the people who want to go to Mars will dislike something about the colony, or not have the necessary skills, and so they lie in order to be accepted.

The best solution to this problem is to stop providing people with secrecy and demand the right to know the details of the people we live with. We must also stop tolerating misfits and troublemakers. They must be evicted, but no society yet is willing to evict misfits. If the Mars society will not evict misfits, either, then the quality of their colony will decrease every time another troublemaker gets into the colony.

A larger percentage of the population today is mentally ill than when the Pilgrims landed in Plymouth. This increases the chances that the Mars colony will be contaminated with mentally ill people. Imagine if people like Josef Fritzl, Jerry Sandusky, and the NAMBLA members hide their pedophile activities and are accepted into the colony. The Mars colony would have the same problems with pedophilia that we have here on the earth. For an even more bizarre possibility, imagine if men like this one and this get into the colony. (If you don't want to click on the links, those are two American men who climbed into a public outhouse, apparently because they were titillated by watching people pee and poop on them.)

Creating a new society requires explorers, not colonists

What sort of social activities will the people in the Mars colony have for leisure time? I find it amusing that instead of suggesting that they develop their own social activities, holidays, calendar, and Internet, they plan to provide a connection to the Internet and television of the earth. There will be significant time delay in such a connection, but as they write,
"If an astronaut would like to watch the Super Bowl, he or she can request it, and it would be uploaded to the server on Mars."

I think the reason they are suggesting a connection to the earth is because they don't have the emotional ability to truly separate from the earth and start their own social activities. They are behaving like a child who wants to walk away from his mother, but he cannot let go with both his hands, so one hand remains clinging to her dress.

The explorers of centuries earlier didn't have radio or cell phones, so when they were on an exploration, they became completely cut off from the rest of the world. A more sensible Mars colony would consist of people who have a similar attitude. They should be able to break away from the earth, and start their own leisure and social activities. Besides, the significantly lower level of gravity and other environmental differences make it foolish for them to mimic the sports and leisure activities on the earth. They should develop their own activities. Swimming, bicycle riding, and dancing would be significantly different in that environment. They should develop activities to fit their world, not mimic what the people on the earth are doing. They should not want to watch us; we should want to watch them. Instead of following us, they should create a new path in life.

Is the Mars One project a serious operation? It is possible that the people who started it truly believe in what they are doing and are honestly trying to do a good job, but we ought to consider the possibility that the organizers are suffering from some type of mental disorder, or that the project is a variation of a religion in which the organizers collect money from unhappy people who hope that they will find salvation on Mars. It might also be a way for them to meet lonely, frustrated people that they can use for sex, which seems to happen at some of the bizarre religious groups.

The organizers of this project have set goals for themselves, such as landing a few astronauts in the year 2021 to begin construction of a settlement on Mars, and landing a few more astronauts in 2025. However, even if they are capable of achieving those goals, their Mars colony in 2025 will not be a true colony. It will be a very crude scientific outpost with just a few people, and it will be much more dangerous and brutal than the scientific outposts in the Antarctic. It will not be a place to raise families or relax. It would be suitable only for men who have a personality similar to Magellan or Columbus. Specifically, men who are willing to tolerate unbelievably brutal and life-threatening conditions.

At what point in the future will the "ordinary" people be able to travel to Mars? It is conceivable that nobody alive today will live long enough to see ordinary people going to Mars. Rocket technology has improved a lot during the past few decades, but there are still failures putting a satellite into earth orbit.

The Mars One organization collected more than $100,000 from donations and sales of merchandise by the end of June 2013, and they claim that they need a total of $6 billion for the entire project. The 6 billion figure reminds me of the 6 million Jews who were gassed and burned by Nazis. What a coincidence that their estimate of the project is a similar number!

The Mars colony is not irrelevant to your life!

Since you are not likely to be interested in joining the Mars One project, the problems that a Mars colony would face may seem insignificant to you, but they are very significant to everybody here on the earth. The reason is that the problems that the Mars colony would face are the exact same problems that we face right now on the earth.

To put this concept in different words, if a person does not have the intellectual or emotional ability and desire to discuss and deal with the social problems of a Mars colony, then he does not have the ability to handle the social problems that we have here on the earth. Such a person should not be influencing the future of the human race.

Furthermore, a society is just an organization, so starting a colony on Mars is not much different from starting a new business. Regardless of what type of organization we are creating, a group of people must be assembled into a team that works for a common goal. When people want investors to provide them with money for a new business, they must show the investors that they have already selected some people for key positions of the company, and that they have already developed the basic structure for the company, and that they have already figured out how the company is going to accomplish its goals.

Imagine a group of people trying to get investment money for a new business in the same manner as the Mars One project is getting investors. Imagine a person making a proposal to some investors with a speech like this:
"We need $6 million for our business venture. We plan to create a business in Montana. We don't know how many employees we will have, but everybody who is interested in becoming an employee can send us their name. We don't know how we will select employees, but whoever is selected will be transported to Montana at some point in the future, although we don't know when. We don't have any idea how the business will be structured, or how it will operate, or what its goal will be, but the employees will be free to figure that out once they arrive in Montana."

The people who want to create a Mars colony should first design the colony. It would be even more sensible for them to find a location here on the earth for them to set up an experimental colony so that they can test both their social ideas and the technology that they're going to use to grow food, process water, etc. They should do these experiments before they go to Mars, not after they arrive.

In Egypt, people demonstrated a year ago to remove President Mubarak, and now they just finished another demonstration to remove President Morsi. As of today, 14 July 2013, all they have accomplished through their demonstrations is more violence, death, destruction, and chaos. We are not going to bring ourselves a better government simply by demonstrating on the streets and throwing rocks. Providing ourselves with a better government requires that we do a lot of hard work, such as discussing who among us would be a better leader, and what sort of policies the nation should experiment with. This requires people who can discuss issues calmly and compromise on policies.

Egypt and other nations have already had hundreds of different leaders during the past few centuries, but not much improves when a society gets new leaders. The reason is because the replacements are very similar in regards to personality, talent, intelligence, and education. The reason our leaders are so similar to one another is that we select them through the same process every time. In America, for example, Jews are secretly promoting the candidates they want, and so during every election we get Jewish puppets. It makes no difference how many times we remove a government official. We get a Jewish puppet during every election.

I don't know how the Egyptians are selecting their president, but it is likely to be by the same process every time, resulting in the same type of people.

We are not going to bring improvements to the world by following the same procedure over and over and hoping that our failed procedures will miraculously work properly the next time. We have to be willing to experiment with a new procedure for selecting leaders rather than continue following our ancestors.

This concept applies to people who demonstrate in America, also. Instead of staging demonstrations about President Obama, gay rights, or abortion, the people who participate in those demonstrations should analyze our problems and provide intelligent suggestions on what we should experiment with. Nothing is going to improve from a group of people having a temper tantrum on the streets. Some of those people might respond that tantrums have removed President Morsi, but that hasn't done anything yet to improve Egypt. They are not going to improve their nation by staging tantrums over and over.

A lot of Americans demonstrated during the 1960s and 1970s to stop the Vietnam War, but I don't think they are responsible for stopping the Vietnam War, and they did absolutely nothing to stop the subsequent wars. If, instead, they had started serious discussions about the cause of the Vietnam war and possible solutions, then they would have eventually heard the type of accusations that Kay Griggs made. She said the Vietnam War was instigated by some Jews. If the Vietnam protesters had been investigating those accusations, then they could have possibly done some truly beneficial work for the human race. Instead, all they did was destroy property and kill a few people.

The only way to improve society is to do some hard work. We are not going to improve a nation simply by throwing rocks at the police. We have to analyze issues and experiment with possible changes. Unfortunately, most people do not want to do these analyses. It is difficult and time-consuming to do analyses. Also, most people are too arrogant to compromise. Most people prefer to resolve problems like an animal. When an animal is upset, it will growl, bite, scratch, and kick. The people who are demonstrating in Egypt and America are behaving exactly the same way.

Reacting to problems with violence and tantrums is justifiable for animals, but we should no longer tolerate this among adults. In this modern world, adults who are unhappy with something should be told to analyze the issue and provide intelligent suggestions, or shut up. We should not tolerate tantrums from adults or teenagers.

It is possible that the majority of people in the world are so much like animals that the human race cannot yet tell the adults to stop the tantrums and resolve issues in an intelligent manner, in which case tantrums may be the only practical method for resolving disputes for the next few thousand years. However, we could give this policy a try by prohibiting demonstrations and watching what happens. It is possible that there are enough intelligent people to resolve issues without tantrums.

We don't have to worry about hurting ourselves by experimenting with such a policy. If it turns out that humans are so much like animals that we cannot resolve issues in any manner other than violent tantrums, we simply cancel the policy and tell people to go back to having temper tantrums. We have nothing to fear. We are not going to hurt ourselves by experimenting with changes.

We don't have to travel to Mars for a better life

It is idiotic for us to consider setting up a colony on Mars. For one reason, we don't have the technology, and it is not likely to become available during our lifetimes. It would be an incredible struggle for us to send a few explorers to the moon for a brief trip.

The other and more important reason is that the only way to make life in a Mars colony more pleasant than life here on the earth is to restrict immigration to Mars, and to create a better government, legal system, and other social technology. If we can do that for the Mars colony, then we can do it here on the earth. All we have to do is take a plot of land, build a city on it, design a government, legal system, and other social technology for it, and then restrict immigration to the people who are willing to accept the social environment of that particular city. After the people move into the city, they must begin experimenting with their social affairs, economic system, recreational activities, courtship activities, and government.

If another group of people want to try a slightly different style of city, then they can take another plot of land, create their own city, and restrict immigration to people who prefer that style of city.

We can be doing this right now. We don't need to first develop new technology. All we need are people who have the emotional ability to turn their back on their ancestors, walk away from their family members, and experiment with a new life. We also need people who can discuss issues and compromise on policies rather than fight with one another. We need people who can be trusted, who are responsible, and who have the emotional ability to look critically at their own society and their own opinions.

Can we find enough people to do this? And if so, are we going to make this attempt soon, or are we going to die of old age while we think about it? We have nothing to lose, but a lot to gain.

In the American legal system, the police are not supposed to investigate people unless they have "probable cause" to suspect them of a crime. I think this policy is helping criminals, not honest people. For example, some of the people who appear to be ordinary, innocent people who are taking a walk for exercise, or walking their dog, or jogging for exercise are actually burglars, pedophiles, or thieves looking for unlocked homes or cars, objects to steal, or children to kidnap. Some of the people who appear to be innocent citizens who are shopping or sightseeing are actually looking for stores to burglarize or purses to steal. Some innocent people who are having dinner at a restaurant or walking in a park are actually passing stolen items to one another, or passing bribery payments, or passing illegal items.

Ideally, a society would have so little crime that citizens would not have to live in fear of one another, and there would be no need for the government to watch over us. How could we possibly reduce crime to such low levels? I think the only way we can do this is to remove the secrecy that people are provided with today, and let the police watch us even more closely.

Some people might describe this as a paradox. Specifically, in order to reduce crime and the need for the government to watch us, we have to let them watch us even more closely. The more effectively they watch us, the better they will do at reducing crime, and the more they reduce crime, the less they need to look at the surveillance data that they collect.

It is conceivable that future societies reduce crime to such a low level that the police department is vacant most of the time. In such a society, when a crime occurs, some people would temporarily take time off from their job to become a police investigator, and then they would look through the archives of data to figure out what happened, and after the crime has been dealt with, they would return to their original jobs. In that society, the surveillance of the population could be extreme, but the police would rarely look at the data.

When people are in their own home, they can be secretive individuals who have the right to do as they please, but once they go out in public, they should become "members of society" who follow rules of behavior. The city should belong to everybody, not to any particular person, and everybody should feel safe in their city. Nobody should be allowed to be secretive when they are out in public. Anybody who wants to do something in public that he is ashamed of should be evicted on the grounds that he does not fit into that particular society.

If the idea of being under total surveillance in public seems bizarre, consider that it is occurring right now in most families. Most families live in small houses, and almost everybody knows what everybody else is doing. If a person wants to do something embarrassing, he goes into the bedroom or bathroom and shuts the door. When he is in the living room or kitchen, he is in a "public" area, and everybody in the family can see what he is doing. However, the people in a family do not whine that they need secrecy while they are in those public areas. They don't care if other people see them.

If you think of a city as being like a very large family, then we could apply the same concept to an entire city. Your home would be equivalent to your bedroom, and you would do as you please in your home. When you leave your home, it would be equivalent to walking out of your bedroom. You would be entering a communal living area, and in that public area, you have no right to be secretive, mysterious, suspicious, or frightening.

Total surveillance would help us understand our memory

The ability to monitor the people of the city would provide us with a lot of valuable information. Try to suppress your paranoia of being watched and imagine what it would be like to live in a city in which computers were keeping track of everybody whenever they went out in public. In previous files I mentioned some of the advantages to such a database, such as allowing city managers to do a better job of laying out bicycle paths, foot paths, and parks, and allowing people to analyze their exercise and eating habits. An advantage I didn't explain in detail is that I think this database would be useful in helping us to understand our memory and our dreams, and how dreams are sometimes getting mixed into our memories of reality.

As I mentioned here, there was a time when I was a child when I heard my grandmother and other family members talking in the kitchen, and when I got up out of bed and went into the kitchen, I discovered everybody was still asleep, and my grandmother was not in the house. Obviously I dreamed the incident. I realized that I had confused some dreams with reality because my memories were not matching what my eyes were showing me.

How often do we accidentally get dreams mixed up with reality? If we had a database that had virtually everything about us, then whenever we had a dispute with somebody over what was said or done, we would be able to look in that database to see what actually happened.

I think we will sometimes discover that our memories are slightly inaccurate, but sometimes our memories are dramatically different from reality. We could explain the trivial inaccuracies as due to the characteristics of our memory, but how do we explain memories that are radically inaccurate? I suspect that some of these false memories are the result of dreams getting mixed into our memory.

A database of our lives would help people to figure out how accurate their memory is, and how often they have radically inaccurate memories. There are a lot of people who boast about having a photographic memory, but how many people really do? The people who make those claims would be able to look through data of their life to verify that their memory is truly as incredible as they believe it to be.

This type of database would also help us to see the differences in memory between adults and children, between men and women, and between different people.

I am rarely aware of dreaming, and I rarely remember dreams, but some people say that they can remember lots of dreams. A database of everybody's life might help us figure out if the people who have the easiest time remembering dreams are also having the most problems mixing dreams with reality. Or maybe it's the other way around. Maybe those of us who rarely remember dreams have the most trouble separating dreams from reality. Perhaps the people who have the ability to remember dreams have a better ability to distinguish between dreams and reality.

Surveillance data would be entertaining, also

Surveillance data would also provide us with entertainment once in a while. Imagine that the surveillance computers not only have facial recognition software, they also have sneeze recognition, cough recognition, and sickness recognition. Imagine the computers are also keeping track of our temperature and other medical data. Such an extensive medical database about us would be very useful in helping us to observe how allergies increase and decrease hour by hour, and day by day. We could ask the computers to give us an animated graph of sneezing or the spread of the common cold, for example. I think some of this information would create some entertaining television documentaries. In addition, the information might eventually provide scientists with some clues as to the cause of some of these problems, and possibly how to prevent or reduce some of these problems. Looking at medical disorders can also show us which diseases are most prevalent at different times of the year, and why and how they are spreading.

It is very unpleasant for us to look through large amounts of surveillance data, and it can cause serious eyestrain, but as software becomes more advanced, then people will be able to tell the computers to find video with certain objects or activities. For example, future scientists could ask the computers to find all video of people tossing objects in the air and catching them. Jugglers do this to entertain other people, but a lot of people occasionally toss objects in the air and catch them just for their own entertainment. I sometimes do it. I suspect that we would discover that men do this much more than women, but why? I suppose it is because we have a greater desire than women to catch moving objects, similar to the way a dog enjoys chasing after a ball. Aside from being entertaining, this type of information could help us gain a better understanding of how our mind works, and that in turn can help us understand animals.

Scientists have uncovered a lot of information about animals and plants by closely observing them. If animals could be as secretive as humans, then we would not know very much about them.

If we can control our paranoia of being observed and remove the secrecy that we provide humans, we will be able to closely observe the human race, and this will provide us with a lot of valuable information about each of us as individuals and the human race as a group. Instead of worrying about being observed, we should focus on creating a government that is so honest that we don't have to fear them. We also need scientists that we can trust.

As computer technology improves, we will eventually be able to create a city in which computers are not only tracking our location but also keeping track of how much we eat and drink, and what we are eating. Eventually people will be able to swallow a monitoring device to send data about their digestive system. By analyzing that type of data, the scientists will have tremendous information on how different foods are affecting us, and how people differ in their ability to handle food, and how the cooking of food affects us.

Nobody is worried about surveillance by criminals

Creating a city in which everybody is always under observation when they are out in public might seem to be creating a city that resembles a prison, but being observed is dangerous only if you are being observed by crime networks. If we can create an honest police force and government, we don't have to fear observation. Our priority should be to create an honest government, not worry about being observed.

It's also important to realize that prohibiting the government from observing us does not prevent crime networks from observing us. Actually, crime networks are already observing people all around the world. They observe people for a variety of reasons, such as trying to find somebody they can blackmail, or trying to determine when a person is away on vacation so that they can burglarize their office or home.

One of the reasons the Jewish crime network has been so successful is that they have lots of people around the world to observe us and figure out who among us is aware of their crimes. We are inadvertently helping this crime network by preventing the police from investigating people.

Did you hear about the accusations that Johnny Gosch was kidnapped by a pedophile ring that has photographs of children, and when a pedophile wants one of the children, they arrange for him to be kidnapped?

The paranoia about government surveillance and the lack of concern about surveillance by criminals is similar to what I mentioned about the Cuban missile crisis. During that crisis, many people became hysterical about some Russian missiles that could easily be observed, but they were oblivious to the Russian submarines. The biggest threat to America were the hidden submarines, not the missiles that were easily observable.

Likewise, people are paranoid that some government officials are going to observe them, but a more serious threat are the criminals, pedophiles, and psychotic people who are observing us.

Most people do not think about anything. They react, like an animal. They react to some Russian missiles because they can see the missiles, and that stimulates their emotions, but they do not react to submarines because they cannot see them, so their emotions are unaware of them. They will react to government surveillance because the government brings this issue to their attention, but crime networks never have a press conference and ask if it is okay to take pictures of children or observe neighborhoods.

If we can create an honest government, and if we allow the government to do total surveillance of us, then we would counteract the surveillance by criminals, and it would be very difficult for crime networks to operate.

Consider the people such as myself and Christopher Bollyn who frequently notice people passing by our house, or visiting our relatives, doctors, or dentists. Both Christopher and myself quickly came to the conclusion that we are being monitored by Jewish criminals, but we can't do anything about it. And we are certainly only two of possibly thousands of people that they are regularly spying on.

Ideally, the police would be able to investigate everybody, and that would help the police realize that some of the people who are walking their dogs or jogging through our neighborhoods are actually members of a crime network.

The Jews would respond that allowing the police to investigate everybody would be an "invasion of privacy," but if the police were to investigate an honest person, they would find that he associates with other honest people, and he is doing ordinary activities just like everybody else. The investigation would not harm his life in any manner.

Everybody is observing everybody else

Another important aspect to the issue of privacy and observation is that everybody is already observing and analyzing other people on a regular basis. When you meet people, or when somebody moves into your neighborhood, or when your business hires a new employee, you and other people will perform an analysis of who they are, who their friends are, what type of personality they have, and whether you want them as a friend.

You analyze people all the time, and other people analyze you on a regular basis. You may believe that you are living in secrecy, but many people are routinely observing you. Many people have already analyzed your behavior, clothing, hairstyle, spouse, and family members. Some people have analyzed the manner in which you maintain your home, automobile, or bicycle. Some have analyzed the manner in which you work, talk, walk, play sports, eat, and sit. You might be able to avoid government surveillance, but unless you are living completely alone and isolated, you cannot stop people from observing you and analyzing you.

It is also interesting to note that men routinely analyze pretty women. We analyze their face, hair, body, and clothing. We also analyze the way they walk, the audio quality of their voice, and the way they smell. Many of us will also visualize what a woman looks like without clothing, or imagine what she would be like to have dinner with, or guess at what she would be like as a mother. Are we invading their privacy when we do these analyses?

Furthermore, virtually everybody occasionally publicizes their analyses to their friends. Not many people, if any, keep their analyses a secret. Some people boast that they don't gossip about other people, but I think everybody does it. The only difference between us is that some people spend more time gossiping, and some people are more insulting.

If every human conversation had been recorded, and if we could search through that incredible amount of data to find remarks about you, we would find that many people have criticized or praised different aspects of you. We would find that hundreds, possibly thousands, of people have analyzed different aspects of you and provided their comments to their friends, coworkers, and neighbors.

Conversely, if every remark that you have made during your life had been recorded, we would find that you have also frequently provided people with your analysis of other people. If it is acceptable for you to do this to other people, why can't they do it to you?

There is nothing wrong with analyzing people and passing judgment on one another. Actually, it is an important aspect of modern society. Modern humans must regularly analyze one another and pass judgment on who among us is a contributing member, and who is causing trouble. We must also pass judgment on who is qualified to fly airplanes, perform medical services, and operate construction equipment.

We should not promote the attitude that investigating and analyzing a person is an "invasion of privacy." We should face the fact that modern society requires that we regularly analyze one another and pass judgment on everybody's abilities and limitations.

Schools should regularly analyze students, teachers, and school officials. Businesses should analyze their employees and management. A society should regularly analyze their police departments. The police departments should regularly analyze citizens and government officials.

We all benefit by analyzing people and helping everybody find a job that they are most suited to, and helping people find a compatible spouse, and helping people find leisure activities that they enjoy. We gain nothing by living in secrecy and creating phony images of ourselves. Our ancestors did not have secrecy, and we don't need it, either.

Some people will respond that these type of analyses will create a state of fear, but it will create a team in which people are helping one another and helping society. For example, the players and coaches of sports teams routinely analyze one another's abilities. The players don't live in fear of analyses, and neither do the coaches. An athlete doesn't whine that his coach is invading his privacy when he records him with a video camera and then analyzes his performance. An athlete would complain about an idiotic analysis, but they realize that constructive criticism can help them improve their performance. The only people who are afraid of analyses are those who are trying to deceive us about what they really are, or who are destructive or parasitic.