How many older men
by her wrinkly skin and age spots? If older men were truly
attracted to older women, then the pornography would have to change
according to the age of the customer. The Playboy magazines would have
different editions for different ages because the old men
not want to look at pictures of
teenage girls. Instead, the old men would be titillated by
wrinkly and dry skin, varicose veins, age spots,
saggy breasts, dry vaginas, and gray hair. Wealthy old men would
want old women as wives, not young women.
The sex robots would also have to be
designed differently for different ages. In reality, there is
going to be only one type of sex robot, and that
will be a robot that
looks like a teenage girl.
There are exceptions in what men are attracted to, of course, such as
the homosexual men, but I'm
referring to the typical men, not the exceptions.
are businesses that offer to edit the photos of little girls, such as
the photo to the right, but they
never offer to make the little girls look like 70-year-old women.
Instead, they try to make the girls look like little teenagers.
Businesses will also edit photos of adult women to make them look younger,
not to make them look older. The reason is simply
because we are most attracted to teenage girls.
These concepts apply to women, also. Women are most sexually
attracted to men in their 20s who are physically healthy, and as women
get older, they do not develop an attraction to
wrinkly old men. An 80-year-old woman is just as attracted to a
20-year-old man as a 20-year-old woman.
Also, women have a very strong craving to
grab at, kiss, and touch babies and children, and as the women grow
older, that emotion remains exactly the same. Older women do not
their interest in babies and develop an interest in older children. An
80-year-old woman has the same attraction to babies as a 20-year-old
I think women will have a better understanding of men if they look
seriously at themselves. Specifically, I think the craving that women
have to grab at and kiss babies is the same emotion that men have to
grab at and kiss women. However, women are not
reprimanded when they behave in this manner because:
1) Women do not become sexually aroused
when they touch babies, and so they are regarded as being affectionate,
but when men touch women, we can
As a result of these differences between men and women, women do not
have to exert much self-control over their craving to touch babies,
whereas men must exert a lot of self-control around women, including
their own wives.
2) Babies and children do not whine about abuse when women touch or
kiss them, not even when the women are strangers.
comparison, women have strong inhibitions about being touched by men.
have limits on how much they want their husband to touch them. Women
were not intended to be sex toys; they are designed
to be mothers.
today need to accept reality
The word "pedophile" refers to adults who
are attracted to children
below the age of sexual maturity, so most men are not
with that definition. However, men of all ages are more strongly
attracted to teenage girls than any other age group. Unfortunately,
most men will not admit that they have an attraction to teenage girls,
mainly because our societies are promoting the attitude that such an
attraction is perverted, sick, evil,
disgusting, or dirty.
One of the unfortunate aspects of humans and animals is that we have no
interest in honesty or reality. We tend to believe whatever we want to
believe, and we create false images of ourselves to impress
people. We frequently ignore reality and create a fantasy world for
ourselves. Furthermore, our arrogance causes us to boast about
ourselves and criticize other people rather than be serious about
ourselves and other people.
For example, when I claim that men are attracted to teenage girls,
some men are likely to boast that they are attracted
to older women, and that my view of men is distorted
am assuming my perverted attraction to teenage girls is typical of men.
My response to such accusations is that those men are more proof of how
are incredibly arrogant;
that we try to impress people with false images of ourselves; and that
we ignore reality and create fantasy worlds for ourselves.
If a 70-year-old man truly had attractions to 70-year-old women, then we
would have seen lots of evidence of this by now, such as wealthy, older
men showing a preference for older women rather than Anna Nicole Smith,
and we would see that prostitutes for older men are old women
rather than young women.
Some of the men who boast that they don't have an attraction to teenage
girls can see that they have an attraction to teenage girls, but they
do not admit to it because they don't want to listen to the
idiotic accusations that they are perverts.
However, some of the men who boast that they don't have an
attraction to teenage girls are lying to themselves
and other people.
They are living in a fantasy world. They are creating a false image of
themselves. They are climbing onto a pedestal and pretending that they
are better than other men. Their crude behavior is detrimental to
themselves and other people.
The men who can be honest about themselves
are better suited to this modern world because their acceptance of
reality will allow them to do a better job of dealing with life's
problems. They will not be trying to force a square peg into a round
No society yet encourages people to be honest. Instead, we are
encouraging people to lie about themselves. An old
admits that he is attracted to teenage girls will be condemned as a
pervert. He will not
be praised for having the ability to seriously
analyze himself and admit what he finds.
We should change our attitudes on what is admirable in a person. The
people who are capable of honesty are showing advanced human
and the people who create false images are behaving like animals.
should admire a person who is capable of noticing and admitting to
having imperfections, crude emotions, and limitations. We
admire the people who create false images of themselves and pretend
that they are better than everybody else.
Although parents discourage children from lying about certain issues,
such as whether they took food from the refrigerator, they do not
encourage their children to be honest about themselves. Parents are
actually encouraging their children to become arrogant and unrealistic
because parents have a tendency to praise
This encourages the children to be arrogant and unrealistic, rather
than encourage them to exert self-control, learn to deal with
criticism, and learn to face reality.
We all love praise, but praise encourages arrogance and laziness. An
unfortunate aspect of human nature is that we will often benefit from
something we don't like, and we often suffer when we get what we want.
For some examples:
• We benefit from constructive
criticism, but we want praise, which encourages arrogance.
It should be noted that these characteristics cause trouble
only in modern societies; they would have been beneficial during
prehistoric times. For
example, prehistoric people had to face life's problems by themselves,
so they needed a lot of arrogance. They had to believe they had the
talent to find food, and protect themselves and their families from
predators and neighboring tribes. If a prehistoric person did not have
a lot of confidence in himself, then he would have been living in
constant fear of dying, or his family dying. He would have
• We benefit when we eat healthy foods, but we want to eat the foods
that are the most titillating, which can harm our health.
• We benefit when we have to work every day, but we want handouts,
inheritances, and pampering, which causes us to become lazy and
unappreciative of life.
Prehistoric people could also eat whatever they pleased because they
didn't have to be concerned about eating excessive amounts of an
unhealthy food. Both men and women also had to work every day because
there was no such thing as holidays, inheritances, retirement, alimony,
welfare, maids, or trust funds.
In the modern world, however, we hurt ourselves when we struggle to
please our emotional cravings because our cravings are not suited for
this modern world. If we do whatever pleases us, we encourage
dishonesty, arrogance, unhealthy eating habits, laziness, false images,
fantasy worlds, and parasitic behavior. Modern humans must push
themselves into exerting self-control and making wise decisions. We
more honest with ourselves and other people. If you need some reasons
for why honesty is so important today:
• When we are dishonest with other
people, we make it difficult for us to find a
compatible spouse and friends.
• When we are dishonest with potential employers,
we can get into jobs
that we cannot do properly, or into teams that we are incompatible with.
• When we are dishonest with ourselves, we can
emotional turmoil when we experience failures. The reason is because
when we have an unrealistic view of our abilities, we are likely to
come to the conclusion that our failure is
due to somebody else rather than ourselves.
situation occurs frequently with women who have been convinced by
feminists that men and women are unisex creatures, and that men are
abusing women. When a feminist
fails at something, she is likely to assume that her failure is due to
If a person were to have a more realistic view of his abilities and the
abilities of other people, then when he fails at something, he would
be more likely to analyze his failure rather than whine
about being abused.
is reducing incest?
Donald Trump has a very attractive
daughter, and he has made such remarks as, "If
she weren't my daughter,
perhaps I'd date her". The model Christie Brinkley, and
who are afraid that Trump will become president, have used his remarks
that he is disgusting or perverted, but is it abnormal for a father to
regard his daughter as attractive? I think it would be more abnormal if
a father who had an attractive daughter did not
realize she was attractive.
Men are attracted to women because of a circuit in our brain, not
because of the environment. There is some section of our brain that
responds to certain visual images, and that section does not have any
understanding or concern for who a woman is related to. If a woman has
a particular visual appearance, she will stimulate that circuitry,
regardless of whether she is our daughter or a stranger.
Evolution works best when there is lots of genetic variety, and so the
animals, plants, and humans that have been the most successful are
those that do something to increase genetic diversity. For example,
flowers, the pollen develops before the eggs, thereby increasing the
chances that eggs are fertilized with pollen from other flowers.
Humans will create more genetic diversity when incest is kept at
low levels, but our emotions have no
intelligence, so there is no way for our emotions to identify how
genetically similar we are to potential spouses. So how can nature
inspire brothers and sisters to look for a
spouse outside of their family? How can nature discourage fathers and
from reproducing with one another?
There may be several
characteristics that are reducing incest. One is that we will know our
siblings much more intimately than we know other people, even during
prehistoric times when everybody was growing up in the same campsite in
very close proximity to one another.
More importantly, siblings will have some unpleasant
memories of one another, such as arguing with one another, whereas they
will not have so many unpleasant memories of other people. Therefore,
some of the people that they don't know very well will appear to be better
people simply because of the lack of unpleasant memories.
Another reason that we may have a tendency to avoid incest is because
we seem to have a characteristic of not being satisfied with what we
have, and always looking for something better. People have different
expressions to explain this characteristic, such as "the grass is
greener on the other side of the fence", and we "take things for
granted", and we "don't appreciate what we have until we lose it".
This is a genetic characteristic, not an environmental characteristic.
This characteristic caused our prehistoric ancestors to assume that
there are better hunting grounds, better ways to make tools, and better
sources of water. This characteristic could be described as a "defect"
because it causes a person to be unhappy with his life, but from the
point of view of evolution, it has the advantage of inspiring him to do
something to make his life better.
We are never satisfied with what we have. We want something better. No
matter how high up we are in the social hierarchy, we want to become
higher. No matter how much material wealth we have, it's never enough.
No matter how big our house is, it is not big enough. No matter how
much fame we have, we are not famous enough.
We need to understand this characteristic and keep it under control or
we will cause ourselves a lot of unnecessary aggravation and
and ruin our relationships.
This characteristic might help reduce incest by causing men to assume
that "the women on the other side of the fence are more desirable".
There is no answer book to life to let us know what the truth is about
human behavior, so how can we determine if my views
of human behavior are more accurate than yours or
If our view of human
behavior is inaccurate, we will create an
environment for ourselves, and that will result in bizarre behavior. We
will know when our view of ourselves becomes more accurate when we find
our social problems are decreasing, and our lives are becoming more
This concept is most obvious with animals in a zoo.
When we provide a particular species of animals with the wrong
environment, it displays abnormal behavior, but when we give them an
appropriate environment, they form more stable relationships, remain
healthier, live longer, and are more relaxed.
This concept applies to individuals as well as societies. As you develop
a more accurate view of yourself, your
life will become more satisfying. By comparison, when you follow an
inaccurate philosophy, you will be trying to force a square peg into a
round hole, and that will cause you to experience more frustration and
In order to
provide ourselves with a better life, we must understand ourselves, and
we need to design a government system, economic system, social affairs,
and other culture according to those characteristics. We cannot
a society according to what we want to believe we
may have a tendency for extramarital affairs
example of why we need to understand ourselves is the
issue of extramarital affairs. As with pedophilia, we have a tendency
to condemn people who do this, but it
would make more sense to try to understand why it is happening, and
then find a sensible way of dealing with it.
is not much information about this issue because nobody has put much
effort into studying it, but based
on my casual observations of life, there seem to be different reasons
for these affairs. The most common reason seems to be when a marriage
is failing, in which
case one or both partners start losing interest in their
starts looking for somebody else. These people start the process of
finding a new spouse while they are married rather than getting
Our economic system is one reason that people will look for a new
spouse while they are married. Specifically, a
woman who does not have much of an income will
not want to
get divorced and then look
for a husband. She would rather go from one
husband to another husband. Therefore, we could reduce that type
of extramarital affair simply by switching to the
that I have suggested in which everybody is provided with their basic
As long as we have an economic system in which
people have to compete with one another for food and basic necessities,
we are going to encourage miserable relationships because that type of
economic system encourages women to get involved with men for
financial purposes. It also causes divorced couples to argue about how
to divide their possessions, and whether one of them should pay alimony
or child support.
By switching to the economic system I've
described, couples have no possessions to fight over, and we also
eliminate the need for child support and alimony. This
eliminates the need for women to get married for financial reasons.
This will encourage more relationships that are based on compatibility
rather than money. This in turn is likely to result
that are more stable.
When a marriage is failing, the couple would be able to get divorced
without fear of
homelessness or fights of how to divide possessions, and so there will
be a greater chance that unhappy couples will get divorced rather than
remain married and have affairs.
Although there are lots of other
reasons people might have affairs, there is one other that I wanted to
mention. There seem to be some couples who are satisfied with one
another, but who might have a discreet affair once or twice during
their life, and for no apparent reason other than pleasure. I wonder if
it is because we have a genetic tendency to do this.
The reason it could be natural for us to have extramarital affairs is
because during prehistoric times,
if a man or woman would occasionally get the urge to have an affair,
they would increase genetic diversity in the tribe.
If a prehistoric tribe was having so many affairs that it
was causing fights, broken relationships, and murders, then those
tribes would have been at a disadvantage, but if some members of a
tribe only occasionally developed the urge to have a discreet affair,
they would have had an
advantage over the tribes that were monogamous.
If we have a genetic tendency to have affairs, we have to make a
decision about whether we want to continue this, or if we want to breed
it out of us. In the meantime, it would be silly to regard the people
who do it as evil. We should instead make intelligent decisions about
what to do.
When our prehistoric ancestors were ignorant about where babies came
from, an extramarital affair would not have caused much disruption in a
relationship because the people would not always have sensed
that one of their children had a different father. Now that we are
aware of where children come from, and we are also aware of venereal
diseases, extramarital affairs can cause a lot of trouble in a
However, if we are aware of the possibility that we have a natural
craving for such affairs, then when we start developing such
a craving, we will have an easier time using some self-control
to ignore it, or we may find a way to satisfy the craving without
causing so much trouble, such as by flirting with other people without
letting the flirting go too far.
By comparison, when we are ignorant about our emotional cravings,
then when we develop a craving for an affair, we
might foolishly set up a feedback loop in which we tell ourselves over
and over that we are miserable, and that we need an affair to enjoy
life. By convincing ourselves that we are miserable, we can interfere
with the relationship with our spouse, and we might also convince
ourselves to have an affair, which can cause more trouble.
Some men and women have gone even further and interpreted their craving
for an affair as a sign that they are in a miserable relationship, and
that the person that they want to have an affair with is their ideal
spouse, and so they abandoned their spouse to be with that perfect
person. After a few days the craving for the affair diminished, and
they came to the conclusion that they had made a mistake, and they
wanted to go back to their spouse.
we regard ourselves as a creation of a loving God, then the people who
have extramarital affairs will be
regarded as evil rather than lacking self-control, and our solution to
the problem will be unrealistic,
such as punishing them. However, if
we regard ourselves as monkeys, and if we start
emotional cravings, then we will be able
to understand why people do what they do, and we can make intelligent
decisions on how to deal with our emotional cravings.
Animals and humans do not develop the "ideal" qualities. Rather, we
develop whatever qualities allow us to survive the battle for life.
This has resulted in humans developing qualities that were acceptable
during prehistoric times, but which are causing trouble for us today.
We need to understand and admit to our animal-like qualities so that we
can make intelligent decisions about how to deal with our cravings.
must design society to fit our true qualities
the truth about ourselves is going to create problems for us. We are
not going to create a pleasant social environment when we ridicule men
as "perverts" when they admit that they are attracted to teenage girls,
or when we regard people as "evil" when they have extramarital affairs.
to understand what we are, and we need to design society accordingly.
Unfortunately, we don't like reality. Our natural tendency is
to believe whatever is most pleasing to us.
Our societies today are following the false philosophy that
teenagers are sexually attracted to teenagers, adults are attracted to
adults, and elderly people are attracted to elderly
people. Unfortunately, this is a false philosophy, and it is
creating problems for us because it puts pressure on people to lie
about their true feelings, and it causes us to condemn people for being
honest. Donald Trump is not a pervert for
recognizing that his daughter is attractive, for example. He is simply
stating the truth.
makes no sense for a male animal to be attracted to older females. The
competition for life will always favor the males
who are attracted to
females who have just reached sexual maturity. It is idiotic
for a male
animal to be attracted to elderly females, or for a bee or
butterfly to be attracted to elderly flowers.
Humans are supposed
to form relationships during our late teenage years. We are not
supposed to remain single throughout our 20s or 30s, and we are not
supposed to be starting a family at age 40.
The reason there are
so many people over the age of 20 who are still single is because we
have inadvertently created a neurotic, unnatural, miserable social environment
for ourselves. Boys and girls are being raised in an environment in
which they pick up idiotic and conflicting bits of
information about life, marriage, money, jobs, feminism, and
other issues. They become teenagers who waste their youth in a
state of confusion, frustration, and awkwardness. Many of them become
adults who are lonely and wondering what to
do with their life.
In order to
improve this situation, we need to experiment with our social
environment so that by the time a child becomes a teenager, he has a
more realistic view of life, and he can enjoy being a
teenager. Our teenage years are an exciting time in life. It
transition that is full of mysteries and interesting feelings. The
teenagers should enjoy flirting, and they should get to know a lot of
people. They should start forming long-term friendships. Most people
should find a spouse before they are 25 years old.
should also help teenagers prepare for jobs. Teenagers were not
designed to deal with a modern economic system. It is ridiculous to
teenagers to make wise decisions about jobs. They don't know enough
about the economic system to know what jobs will be available in the
future, and they cannot be expected to have a good understanding of
their abilities and desires.
The schools should be responsible
for helping students find jobs. The schools should work with the
businesses so that the teachers know what type of jobs are available,
will be available in the near future. The schools need to put
through various activities to help the students figure out what type of
they have the ability to do, and what jobs they enjoy doing.
By making schools responsible for helping students find jobs,
and by holding schools partly responsible for the success of their
friendships, then the school officials will be judged
according to their ability to
children for society, as opposed to what we have today, in
which schools pander to students and parents.
During prehistoric times, parents did not have to do much to educate
their children. The sons would mimic their fathers, and the daughters
would mimic their mothers. Today, however, we need schools to provide
children with an education, and to help them figure out what type of
job to pursue. Schools should not be business
ventures or entertainment centers. Schools should be an "auxiliary
parent". Schools should be preparing children for life.
are repelled by babies
It is also important to note that a
normal man is repelled by babies. We do not like the way babies look,
sound, smell, or behave. We don't like childbirth, either,
or the mess created by childbirth. Men are more tolerant of
children, but we do not want to be around
children for long periods of time.
The feminists are pushing for men to show an interest in babies and
children, such as being with their wife when she gives
birth, but this is equivalent to men pushing women into having
the same interest in sex that men have. Men and women need to accept
the fact that we are different from one another,
and we need to learn
to deal with our differences.
and women have different roles in life
Unfortunately, a lot of women do not want
to admit that men and women are different. They are putting pressure on
men to act like women. For example, a woman took her son to a hospital
when he was having problems with asthma, and she fell asleep in the
room. When she woke up, she discovered her husband had arrived and was
sleeping underneath her son's crib. She took a photo of it and posted
on Facebook, describing him as "father
of the year".
During prehistoric times, if a man had a craving to spend his time with
babies or sick children, he would risk the life of his family.
Prehistoric fathers had to spend their time making tools and looking
for food, and the prehistoric women took care of
children. We evolved for different roles in life.
When a woman boasts that her husband slept in the hospital
child had a problem with asthma, or when a woman boasts that
held her hand while she was giving birth, they are encouraging men
to behave like women.
There is nothing wrong with breeding humans so that men become more
like women, but will that really improve life for us? I don't think so,
and the reason is because it is becoming increasingly easy to raise
During prehistoric times, it was necessary for a woman to devote her
life to taking care of her children, but in this modern world, it is so
easy to raise children that mothers do not have to spend so much time
with children and babies, and we
certainly don't need both a mother and father to
spend a lot of time with children.
Technology is making it increasingly easy for us to raise children,
so instead of breeding men to become more like women, it would make
more sense to breed women so that they develop other interests in life.
Women need to do more than clean a house and take care of children,
especially if we switch to the economic system I suggest in which
everybody gets the basic necessities for free, and we switch to living
apartment complexes that provide women with easy access to free daycare
centers and restaurants, and that provide the children with
other children, schools, and recreational areas.
how do we explain pedophiles?
Although normal men are
sexually attracted to
teenage girls, we are not sexually attracted to
children, and we are
repelled by babies. So how do we
explain the men who
are interested in sexual relationships with babies or children? And how
do we explain the men who are sexually attracted to young boys?
If we were to study the pedophiles from the point of view that they are
humans like the rest of us rather than monsters, we might notice some
patterns, such as certain types of mental disorders or personality
characteristics, but nobody has
done any serious analysis of pedophiles, so there is no data for us to
analyze. Most of us have never known a pedophile, or we know of only
one, so we cannot use our personal experiences to help us understand
them. Our main source of data are news reports that give simplistic and
biased descriptions of pedophiles. Despite this lack of data, I can
think of two ways of explaining pedophiles.
pedophiles may not be true pedophiles
In a previous document, I mentioned that I suspect a lot of the people
who describe themselves as "homosexuals" are not true homosexuals.
Rather, they are lonely heterosexuals. Due to some type of mental
illness, abnormal childhood environment, or bizarre personality, they
had trouble forming a relationship with a woman, and they have turned
to other men in desperation.
It is very common for us to take whatever we can get when we cannot get
what we want. We refer to this as "taking the lesser of the evils". An
animal's attitude is to satisfy its emotions, and if it cannot do
exactly what it wants, it will sometimes do something similar in order
to appease those emotions.
Perhaps the easiest example to understand are the people who form
abnormally close relationships with dogs, especially the people
who have sex with a dog. None of those people are truly
attracted to dogs. All of them prefer people for both friends and sex
partners. However, they have had so many problems with people and are
so lonely that they are turning to another species to fulfill their
needs for friendship or sex.
lifelike baby doll.
There are also women who are forming
abnormally close relationships
with dolls in order to satisfy their cravings for babies. They do not
truly have an attraction to dolls; they have an attraction to human
babies. That's why some of the dolls are so lifelike.
Some of the pedophiles may be similar to the people who have sex with
dogs or who have lifelike dolls. Specifically, they may have
trouble forming relationships with
adults and feel more comfortable around children. Michael Jackson, for
example, seemed to feel more comfortable around children, perhaps
because the adults that he came into contact with were trying to use
and abuse him.
pedophiles may have excessive female qualities
Women have such an extreme attraction to children that they have a
difficult time resisting the urge to grab at children, kiss
and hug them. These cravings are genetic, not
there are genes in the human gene pool that create a craving to hug,
kiss, and grab at babies and young children. If you agree with me that
there is only one
blueprint for a human, then these genes are in male humans, also, but
they should be subdued in men, and/or overpowered by a repulsion of
babies and children.
Since each of us is a unique jumble of genes, men are going to differ
in our attraction to children, our repulsion of children, and our
self-control. If we could measure a man's craving to grab at children,
we would create a bell curve. The men who have strong cravings to touch
children might become pedophiles if they don't have enough self-control
to resist their cravings. If they also have a woman's sexual attraction
to men, they might prefer boys rather than girls.
We currently regard men as being in one of two distinct category;
namely, the pedophiles and the non-pedophiles. If we could measure a
man's attraction to children, we would find that it creates a bell
curve. There may be a lot of men who would be pedophiles if they had a
bit less self-control. When those men are around children,
they have to struggle with themselves to keep their hands off
children. We do not regard those men as pedophiles because they are
controlling their urges, but they are not the same
as the men who do
not have to resist such urges.
A man should have a repulsion for children that is strong
to oppose his attraction to children, thereby causing one
emotion to provide checks and balances on another. He will be able to
be around children without any struggle to control his craving to grab
at them. The men whose emotions are not providing appropriate checks
and balances on one another will have to struggle with themselves to
control their cravings.
This concept applies to all of our other emotional cravings, also. For
example, consider the difference in how people react to food. When we
have a social event in which there are lots of adults and children, and
when everybody is supposed to wait to eat until the food is served to
everybody, each person will have a slightly different ability to resist
the temptation to eat the food. At one extreme are the people, usually
the children, who have the most trouble controlling their cravings to
eat, and at the other extreme are the people who show no trouble at all.
If we could see inside the minds of all of the people at the table, we
would discover that even though some of the adults are not
the food, they are not the same inside their minds. We would find that
some of them are going through emotional turmoil. We would find that
they are frequently looking at the food and telling themselves not to
grab at it, and some of them might go so far as to grab their chair in
order to keep their hands away from the food. At the other extreme are
the people who have so little trouble resisting the food that they are
completely relaxed and enjoying a conversation with other people.
If we could look inside their minds to see their sexual feelings, we
would find the same situation is occurring. Some of the men would be
struggling to resist their temptation to touch the women, and some men
would be struggling to resist the temptation to touch the children.
Other men would be able to resist the craving without any trouble.
When we look at a group of people with our eyes, it might appear to us
that everybody is behaving in the same manner, but if we look inside
their minds, we would find that we are not
identical. We would find some people are struggling to control
themselves. To the people who are struggling, the social events will
feel awkward and uncomfortable because they will be unable to relax.
The people who become obese, or who become pedophiles, or who steal
items, are not a different species. They are simply people who don't
have enough self-control to resist the urge to do what they know they
should not do. They can be visualized as crossing a boundary that they
were not supposed to cross.
Some of the people who are behaving properly can be visualized as a
person who is at the edge of the boundary and struggling with the urge
to cross over it. And there are some other people who are a
away from the boundary, but occasionally fantasize about
By changing our social environment, we will change who
boundary. For example, if we were raised in an environment in which
pedophilia is more tolerated, as in Thailand, then more men would give
in to the urge to do it. If we really want to see who among us has
these urges, we would have to make it legal.
would happen if pedophilia were legal?
The idea of making pedophilia legal might
seem frightening, but who
among us wants to have sex with children? Only some
of us do. If we really want to figure out who has a tendency to do
something, we have to put people into an environment in which it is acceptable
to do it.
This issue is very similar to what I mentioned about medical drugs,
marijuana, and other drugs. If we were to legalize all types of drugs,
and if the neighborhood markets and Internet stores were selling
insulin, LSD, thyroid hormones, morphine, and cocaine, which of those
drugs would you
Making drugs legal does not cause people to use
them. Making drugs legal simply provides people who want the drugs to
have access to them. If we make drugs legal, the people who are at the
edge of the boundary will jump over it and start using the drugs, but
the people who never wanted drugs are not going to start using them
simply because they have been legalized.
Likewise, if it were legal to have sex with babies, only some men would
do it. Making it legal will not cause all of us to do it. Making it
legal for men to have sex with babies would
cause an increase in the number of men doing it, but the
only men who would do it when it becomes legal are those who are at the edge
of the boundary and who have been struggling to resist the urge to grab
at babies. If it were legal, they would stop struggling with themselves
and do what they want to do. The rest of us are not sexually aroused by
babies, so it does not matter to us if it is legal or illegal.
If we really want to find out who among us wants to have sex with
babies, we have to make it legal and acceptable.
are for organizing us,
not controlling us
We are currently trying to use laws to
control human behavior. We need
laws, but laws are useful only to organize and coordinate
us. We cannot use laws to control our emotional
cravings, change our intellectual abilities, or alter our
personalities. Laws cannot stop us from doing what we want to do.
cannot make an alligator behave like a dog, or make a
monkey behave like a human. Laws are not going to stop burglary,
pedophilia, heroin addiction, or murder. The only way to stop
undesirable behavior is to control reproduction so
that each generation is naturally better behaved.
What we describe as our
"personality" is our set of
emotional cravings and intellectual abilities. Once you realize
that nothing in the
environment can change the way our emotions operate, you
should be able to realize that the environment cannot alter our
environment can only affect what we learn about life, such as
styles, religion, government, language, and other information
that we pick up
from other people.
The manner in which we interpret laws, and our willingness to follow
laws, depend upon our personality. A sign that prohibits swimming
cannot stop people from going into the
water if they want to. A warning sign is useful only for
understand that the sign is intended to help us; who are willing to
put some effort into decoding the words accurately; and who
are willing to follow the rules.
Those signs cannot control us.
same is true of laws. Laws are
useful only for people who are willing to understand and follow them.
Laws cannot control people. A law against obesity is not going to stop
people from overeating. A law against pedophilia will not stop that
crime, either. A law against being stupid is not going to stop
Everybody is willing to follow laws that we agree with,
but we need a
certain amount of self-control in order to follow a law that we do not
approve of. If we do not have enough self-control, we may interpret a
law in a manner that lets us do whatever we please.
should not promote the concept of "loopholes"
When a person says that he is "wading"
a lake that prohibits "swimming", he is doing what we refer to as
"finding a loophole". He is trying to find a way to interpret a
sequence of words in such a manner that he can justify disregarding the
concept that the author was trying to convey to us.
Many businesses hire lawyers to analyze laws and look for ways to
interpret the words in a manner that the business can benefit from.
These businesses are using lawyers to circumvent laws, not to
understand or improve laws.
Lawyers have discovered lots of different
ways of interpreting tax laws that allow them to avoid taxes, but those
lawyers and business executives are not criticized for being selfish,
immoral, or criminal. Instead, most people would describe them as being
"clever" for "finding a loophole" in the law. Our
society regards finding a loophole in a law to be almost the same as
finding a piece of gold in a creek.
If a lawyer were to find a loophole in our laws against rape or arson,
would you describe that lawyer as being clever? The
reason we consider people to be clever when they find loopholes in tax
laws is because we
don't like following tax laws. However, when we promote the concept
that laws have loopholes, and that people are clever when they find
loopholes, we encourage people to look for loopholes rather than obey
laws or try to improve them.
Furthermore, promoting the concept of loopholes makes our legal system
unnecessarily complicated and idiotic because the government will
respond by trying to "plug the loophole". Unfortunately, laws are not
physical containers that have cracks that can be plugged. Laws are just
sequences of words, and our languages are so imperfect that no matter
how we write a law, somebody might be able to figure out a way to
interpret the words in a manner that allows him to circumvent the
concept that the words are encoding.
This creates an endless cycle in which a person discovers a loophole in
a particular law, and the government reacts by creating another law to
stop that particular loophole, and then somebody discovers another
loophole, and so on. We are not solving the problem of loopholes when
we react by trying to plug the loophole. We are actually making our
situation worse by making our laws unnecessarily complicated, and by
rewarding businesses that find loopholes.
Our tax laws have become so complicated as a result of businesses and
wealthy people who have found loopholes that filling out a tax form is
like playing a game of chess. In a free enterprise system, the only
concern is money, so a business would be foolish not to analyze the tax
laws and take advantage of them.
Mark Cuban recently criticized
Donald Trump for finding ways to reduce his taxes, but Cuban does this
also, and so does almost every business and wealthy citizen. Who among
us is not looking for opportunities to reduce our
Cuban also boasted
that he "gives back" to the community, such as when he gave $1
million to the Dallas Police Department to protect homosexuals, but do
homosexuals in Dallas really need extra police protection? Is Cuban
really "giving back" something of value? I don't think he is helping
us. I think he is doing his usual of helping his Jewish friends insult
Trump, and promote homosexuals.
Our tax laws are complicated, and rather than continue to add to the
problem, it would be better for us to change our attitudes
A person who finds a loophole should not be regarded as "clever".
Rather, finding a loophole should be the same as finding a "mistake".
For example, imagine that on a hot summer day you open the front door
to your house in the evening to let some cool air inside, and you
forget to close the door when you go to sleep at night. Animals would
take advantage of that type of mistake by walking into your home and eating
whatever attracted their attention, but if a human were to
do so, would you describe him as being "clever"? Would you describe him
as "finding a loophole"?
People who take advantage of mistakes are behaving like animals who
steal items from your house because you forgot to shut the door. This
should not be regarded as clever behavior. This
should be regarded as
crude, selfish, irresponsible, inconsiderate, animal behavior.
During the past few centuries, businesses have repeatedly discovered
ways to disregard laws, and the government repeatedly responded by
adding new laws. It would be much more sensible to face the fact that
our languages are crude, and that it is impossible for us to create a
law or document that can convey a complex concept with 100 percent
We must accept the fact that all of our documents have
mistakes, imperfections, limitations, and confusion. We must tell the
citizens that they have a responsibility to
interpret laws properly. When people have a question about a law,
instead of doing what they please, they should ask the
government for advice on what to do.
how should we regulate drones?
Another example of why we need to
our attitude towards laws and language is the issue of drones.
Individual citizens and businesses began using drones before the
government had created laws to regulate drones. Eventually some of the
drone operators began using drones in a manner that irritated other
people, resulting in complaints to the police that some of the drone
operators were irresponsible and obnoxious.
At that point in time, the drone operators could do anything they
pleased with drones and justify it by claiming that there were no laws
regulating drones. The drone operators knew that there were laws
regulating aircraft, but they did not want to follow those laws.
For example, there are laws that specify airplanes remain a certain
distance away from homes, buildings, electric power lines, and
flightpaths. The drone operators knew that even though the law does not
use the word "drone", they have a responsibility to understand the
concept of that law, which is to protect the buildings, power lines,
people, and other aircraft. However, some of the drone operators did
not want to be responsible. They preferred to interpret the laws in the
manner that allowed them to do as they pleased.
If the drone operators had followed the aircraft laws, then they would
have flown their drones only in areas that were away from the aircraft flight
paths, power lines, and other structures, and which provided enough
space for the drones to operate without annoying other people.
However, many of the drone
operators did not want to travel to an
isolated area in order to use their drones. They wanted to use their
drones within crowded neighborhoods, in the middle of cities, along
roads with automobiles and bicycle riders, at schools, near airports,
and in tourist areas. Some of them were as obnoxious as the people who
ride skateboards on public sidewalks and handrails.
When there is no law against something, many citizens will do it even
when they realize that they should not do it, and
they will justify
their selfish behavior by pointing out that there was no law against it.
In July 2015, a man in Kentucky was flying a drone in his neighborhood.
One of his neighbors, William Merideth, considered the drone to be
invading his privacy. Merideth fired three rounds of birdshot at it
with a shotgun, destroying
the drone. It was not the first time that somebody had fired a gun at a
Should people be allowed to fly drones at their homes? If so, unless
they have a very large yard, the drone will be within visual and
auditory distance of the neighbors, and that can cause the neighbors to
The people who use guns, slingshots, or other devices to knock down
drones bring up another issue that we have to deal with. Specifically,
do people have a right to attack drones? The man who fired
rounds of birdshot sent hundreds of particles of lead into the air, and
the people who fire bullets at drones are sending heavier, even more
dangerous projectiles into the air. Do people have the right to use
guns or other devices to destroy drones?
When this case went to court, the judge said: "He
had a right to shoot at this drone". If I had
been a judge in that case, I would have said that the people who fire
guns at drones, or who fire guns into the air during parties or
celebrations, are more of a danger to society than
the people who are flying drones. People who shoot guns into the air
are showing signs that they cannot even think well enough to realize
that the bullets are going to fall down somewhere,
or perhaps they don't care where the bullets fall down.
The people who are purchasing drones have enough intelligence
to realize that they have a responsibility to use drones in a manner
that is not going to irritate other people, get near electric power
lines, or be sucked into the engines of commercial aircraft.
Unfortunately, our natural tendency is to do what we please. When there
are no laws restricting the use of drones, our emotions want to believe
that we can do whatever we want; that everything is legal. The people
who don't have much self-control will use the lack of laws as
justification for being obnoxious and irresponsible.
To add to this problem, people, especially men, have a strong desire to
compete with one another, and this will cause men to get into
competitions with their drones. For example, when a man produces some
interesting photos with his drone, other men will be stimulated into
competing with him by producing photos that are more spectacular. This
can escalate to the point at which the men are using their drones in a
manner that irritates other people, or is dangerous.
Furthermore, when our courts tell people that they have a right to
shoot at drones, the courts will encourage people to shoot at drones,
and this will eventually lead to those people getting into competitions
with each other. William Merideth, for example, described himself as a "drone slayer".
He will stimulate other people into becoming drone slayers, and to boast
about shooting down more drones than Merideth, or more expensive
drones, or drones that were higher in the air, or drones that were more
maneuverable and therefore, more difficult to hit. This could result in
lots of bullets flying through the air and landing in our homes,
schools, and markets.
The issue of drones delivering
this issue. When people see a drone carrying a package, how can they be
sure that it is a legitimate package delivery service rather than a
criminal who is delivering guns, poisons, or bombs? A drone could also
be carrying a gun or poison to kill a person or a neighbor's dog.
Arsonists will be able to use drones to set fires. People could also
use them to drop fleas, ticks, and rats into the yards of people they
don't like. When the drones fly at night, they will be difficult to
we going to have restrictions on flying drones at night?
And how do we know whether a drone is delivering a
package, or stealing
something from somebody's yard? When the drones become more powerful,
they will allow people
to kidnap children from their backyard, schools, and playgrounds.
Crime gangs will eventually be able to use drones for painting
their logos on the areas of buildings and bridges that they cannot
reach. They will also be able to use the drones in fights with other
gangs, and to assist them in their crimes. People who don't like the
neighbor's Christmas decorations will be able to use drones to
When a drone is carrying a package, people will suspect that it might
be a package delivery service, but once it drops the package, it will
appear to be just another drone flying through the neighborhood. Will
our judges give people the right to shoot at those drones on the
grounds that they did not realize it was a package delivery service?
our technology improves, we inadvertently increase the number of
opportunities that criminals have to cheat and abuse us. If we don't
start doing something to reduce crime, we are going to make our
situation worse by providing criminals of the future with more methods
of committing crimes.
must control our craving to compete
In other documents, I mentioned that we
must exert some self-control so that we don't get involved with
competitions that are idiotic or destructive. Although I've mentioned
this before, it is an issue that everybody, especially men, need to
remind themselves of regularly because we have such a strong craving to
Another example of this problem occurred recently when two paramedics
got carried away in a competitive battle to take the most interesting
photos of patients in their ambulance. The competition started out like
most competitions; namely, as harmless entertainment. One of them took
a photo of themselves in the ambulance while they were transporting a
patient, and they sent the photo to the other person. The other person
was inspired to take a photo. This activity soon escalated into a
contest to see who could create the most interesting photo or video.
Because of our craving to win contests, each of them would go further
each time in an attempt to come up with a more interesting photo or
video. Eventually the man did something that most people would describe
as going too far; namely,
he held open the eyes of sedated patient while he took a photo. At that
point he was no longer simply "taking photos"; he was using other
people to help him win a silly contest. Although he did not hurt that
person, if the police had not stopped the competition, it is likely
that the competition would have continue to evolve, possibly getting to
the point at which they started doing truly obnoxious or dangerous
things with their patients.
Those two paramedics are an example of how we need checks and balances
on our activities; of why we must frequently watch ourselves to make
sure that we are not acting like stupid
monkeys. Those two paramedics
are another example of how our insatiable craving to impress other
people and win competitions can cause "harmless entertainment" to
evolve into a contest that becomes irritating, wasteful, or destructive.
Businesses and militaries put a lot of restrictions on what their
members can do, and many of those members complain that the
restrictions are excessive. However, many of those restrictions were
created after people got carried away. For example, some businesses and
militaries prohibit cell phones in certain areas, and some people
complain that there is no harm in people using cell phones in those
areas, but the reason these rules were created is usually because
somebody got carried away and caused trouble.
We have to put restrictions on activities while they are still
harmless, rather than wait for them to escalate to the point of causing
trouble. This creates a problem that we have to learn to live with.
Specifically, we have to follow laws that are not actually "needed",
but which we follow because we don't want people getting carried away.
For example, because of those two paramedics, it is likely that all
paramedics in the future will be told that they are not allowed to take
photos of themselves or other people inside the ambulances. That rule
will seem idiotic to people who don't know the story about those two
Furthermore, there might be some situations in which people benefit
when paramedics take photos or videos of their patient, such as to
provide doctors or the police with evidence of what happened on the
trip to the hospital. This brings up another dilemma that we have to
deal with; namely, that there are occasionally situations in which it
is more beneficial to violate a law than to follow
We can understand some laws without an explanation, such as laws that
prohibit arson, but there are other laws that do not make sense to us
and appear to be completely arbitrary. A law that prohibits people from
taking photos is an example.
Years ago when I was visiting Germany I went into a food market with a
video camera, and I began recording video in a section of the
supermarket where there weren't any people. I assumed nobody would be
bothered by my video camera since nobody was in the area,
but an employee soon noticed me and rushed over to tell me
that I am
not allowed to take photos inside the store even though I was not
bothering anybody. Why was I not allowed to take photos? I don't think
the employee knew why not, and I could not understand why not.
Today there are so many people with cell phones and video cameras that
I can understand why some businesses don't want customers taking photos
and videos inside their buildings. The reason is because some of the
people who do this are irritating and obnoxious. The stores who cater
to tourists are likely to allow photography in their store because they
get tired of arguing with tourists, but the other stores are likely to prohibit photography.
If retail stores
allowed photography, then eventually somebody would bring a drone into
a retail store and fly it around to get video from up in the air. That
would lead to other people bringing their drones into the store, and
that could lead to drones all over the place at shopping malls and
markets. That could even lead to people flying drones inside of
aircraft, or inside a city bus, or inside of a hospital.
Our prehistoric ancestors could do anything they pleased, but as
society becomes more complicated, and as technology increases, we need
more laws, and many of the laws will seem senseless if we don't
understand the purpose for them. Ideally, our government would maintain
a database that lists all of the laws, with an explanation for each of
them. This would allow us to learn why each law was created, and what
its purpose is.
However, even when we understand why we are not allowed to take photos
inside ambulances or retail stores, our emotions will continue to
resist those laws. We will think to ourselves, "OK, the law is intended
to stop people from getting carried away, but I'm not going to get
carried away. So the law should not apply to me!"
One of the problems with modern society is that we must follow laws
even when we don't feel as if they should apply to us. We have to
realize that we are monkeys, and that once we allow one person to do
something, other people will mimic him, or they
will compete with him, which can lead to people
becoming irritating or dangerous.
are designing laws for our emotions,
The police arrested those two
who were taking photos of people in their ambulance, and they were
facing up to five years
in prison. They may not go to prison, but the
point I want to bring to your attention is that:
1) They were arrested.
Compare the crime that those two paramedics committed to the crimes
that other people are committing. I would say that their crime was
among the most insignificant of crimes, yet they
got into more trouble
than people committing much worse crimes. For example, Michelle Fields
filed a false police report against Corey Lewandowski, but she was not
even arrested, let alone facing 5 years in prison.
2) They were facing up to
five years in prison.
Or compare it to the Hollywood actor, Brian Peck, who was put in jail
for 16 months for sexually abusing
a child. Other people in Hollywood are suspected of pedophilia, but
they don't even get arrested.
Why do the police arrest paramedics who take photos of people in an
ambulance, but not arrest journalists who file false police reports?
The reason is because we are following our emotions when we create
laws. Most people's emotions are more upset at the thought of a
paramedic taking a photo of them while they are in an ambulance than
they are at the thought of a dishonest journalist who is trying to
trick the police into arresting somebody.
There seem to be three reasons why we are more upset with paramedics
who take photos of us than with journalists who lie:
1) The dishonest journalists do not
directly affect our lives, and most of us have no
contact with journalists, whereas all of us are potential candidates
for a ride in an ambulance. Therefore, we will create an animated image
in our mind of paramedics taking photos of us in an ambulance, and
giggling at the photos. This will be emotionally upsetting because
we are in that animated image. By comparison, when we
visualize a dishonest journalist, we are not a part
of the animation.
We are more upset at the thought of a paramedic taking an unflattering
photo of us than we are about journalists who who lie, but
paramedics who take photos are causing less
trouble for society than the dishonest journalists,
especially when the paramedics keep the photos to themselves rather
than post them on the Internet. The people who cheat us in financial
markets are also causing a lot more trouble than paramedics who take
photos of us, but their crime is too intangible for most people to
understand. We should design laws according to what
is best for society, not according to which crimes are the
most emotionally stimulating.
2) Animals, other than skunks and the top carnivores, have a natural
fear of being
observed. When we see a pair of eyes staring at us, our fear emotion is
triggered and we become very alert to danger. We do not feel
comfortable when somebody is watching us. We do not even like the idea
people watching us with security cameras.
When we see a security camera, our mind visualizes somebody watching
us, and that will trigger our fear of being watched. In order to relax
around security cameras, we have to remind ourselves that the person
who is watching us is trying to stop crime, not hurt us.
3) We have a strong craving to impress other people, but no craving to
be honest about ourselves. The thought of somebody taking a photo of us
when we are in an ambulance is upsetting for the same reason that we
would be terrified if somebody took a picture of us immediately after we
got out of bed. Specifically, we want to impress people, not let them
know the truth about us. We want all of the photos of us to make us
look good. We want to destroy the photos that we regard as
unflattering. We want to create a biased view of ourselves, not an
should interpret existing laws for new technology
A government cannot predict what type
technology is going to be created, so new products will always be
created before there are laws to regulate them. Therefore, a nation
should promote the attitude that everybody has a responsibility to
interpret the existing laws to handle new technology, and if we have a
question, we should send it to the government for clarification.
When laser pointers first became available to consumers, some people
pointed them at aircraft at night to interfere with the pilot's vision.
Children regarded the laser pointers as toys, and they considered it to
be amusing to point the lasers at people and pet cats.
Arizona created a law that prohibited people from aiming a laser
pointer at a police officer, and in 2014, they
added an amendment
to include aiming the laser at an aircraft. Are
they going to add more amendments, such as prohibiting people from
aiming lasers at UPS delivery drivers, firemen, and school bus drivers?
The government should stop promoting the attitude that a law should
list every possible scenario. If we continue with this attitude of
trying to close loopholes, we are going to end up with laws that are
It is against the law to aim a laser
pointer at police officers, pilots of aircraft, UPS drivers, firemen,
school bus drivers, postal workers, teachers and classrooms, dentists,
doctors, priests, the Pope, the Hollywood celebrities who are walking
down the red carpet, and animals at the zoo. Furthermore, spectators of
an athletic event are prohibited from aiming the lasers at the
opponents team members, coaches, cheerleaders, and fans. The spectators
of music concerts are prohibited from aiming lasers at the
musicians, other audience members, and the person singing. It is also
illegal for people to aim laser pointers at bank tellers and other
employees of a bank, and the cashiers of retail stores. It is also illegal
to aim lasers at butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers.
It would make more sense to tell every citizen that they have a responsibility
to figure out for themselves what type of behavior is acceptable, and
what is not acceptable. People who lack the ability to make wise
decisions need to be put on restrictions, or evicted.
We should stop regarding them as clever people who have found a loophole.
we have the right to own laser
weapons or robots?
If powerful lasers ever become small
enough and inexpensive enough to become weapons for individual
citizens, we will once again have this problem of technology that
exists before there are laws to regulate it. People will justify doing
whatever they please with laser weapons on the grounds that the Second
Amendment gives them the right to own weapons, and there are no
restrictions on what we can do with lasers weapons.
Is there any law
prohibiting us from putting laser weapons on drones? And even if there
was such a law, how many criminals and crime networks would obey it?
This problem will also occur as soon as businesses begin to produce
robots. There might be such ridiculous situations as people using robots
to commit crimes, and justify it by claiming that it is legal
because there are no laws prohibiting what the robot did.
Does every citizen have the right to own robots? Or should we require
people to get licenses to own robots? Should people register their
robots? Or will citizens form a National Robot Association that whines
about the government trying to regulate robots? Will famous actors make
defiant statements, such as, "You
will get my robot when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!"?
Should people have to pass some type of tests to ensure that they know
how to operate robots properly? Should we prohibit children from having
access to robots? Should robots be designed to recognize children,
regard them as mentally incompetent, and ignore their requests? Should
robots also ignore the requests of retarded people, senile people,
idiots, or people who don't have a license to operate robots?
And consider the issues that sex robots
create. For example, if a person rents his sex robot to other people,
is he guilty of prostitution? Or is having sex with a
robot just a form of masturbation? Can a person open a business in a
shopping mall in which customers pay a fee to use a sex robot in a
private room? Can people create sex robots that resemble little
children, or will that be considered a type of pedophilia?
Can somebody design a sex robot that looks like somebody in particular,
such as Queen Elizabeth or Lady Gaga? Or do businesses have to get
permission or pay a fee in order to do that? What if the businesses
that offered the Queen Elizabeth robots were advertising them for
There are a lot of people who like shooting guns at targets, and
playing with paintball guns. Somebody might eventually develop robots
that people can shoot at. Will businesses be able to offer robots that
resemble particular people and allow people to kill them? Or will that
be considered some type of murder?
Robots are going to create a lot of situations that we have no laws
for. We can create some laws for robots before we start manufacturing
robots, but history shows us that nobody has been able to accurately
predict how technology will be used. Therefore, we should assume that
robots are going to create situations that nobody anticipated, and
which there are no laws about.
If we focus on the concept that a law represents,
then it will not matter whether a law specifically addresses a
particular issue with drones, lasers, or robots. With that philosophy,
every citizen has the responsibility to understand the concept of each
law, and apply that concept to his particular situation. The citizens
who lack the ability to make sensible decisions should be put on
restrictions, or evicted, on the grounds that they are too inept to
deal with modern society.
When we encounter a situation that we are not sure of, we should send
our questions to the government. Of course, this requires a government
that responds to such questions, and in an intelligent manner. Most
businesses provide us with phone numbers and email addresses of their
customer service department, and they tend to respond quickly, but no
nation yet has a government that responds to questions or complaints as
well as a business.
Actually, there are some questions that not even businesses will give a
sensible answers to. Examples are questions related to the
9/11 attack, the Apollo moon landings, and carbon taxes. And the Jews
want to make it illegal for us to ask questions
about the Holocaust.
We need to make a lot of changes to our nation in
order to provide ourselves with a government that gives us honest
answers to questions, and which treats us with respect.
In September 2016, Ahmad Rahami was arrested for setting off a bomb in New
York City. As with some of the other Muslims who were arrested for
terrorism, the FBI had been informed
that Rahami was a potential danger to society.
The journalists tell us that the reason the FBI knew that he was dangerous is because the FBI receives lots of information about
potentially dangerous people. We are told that once in a while the FBI arrests
some terrorists before they conduct an
but sometimes the terrorists are successful with their
journalists create the impression that the FBI is trying their best to
However, a more likely explanation for why so many of
the terrorists are known to the FBI is that the FBI is
everybody who gets arrested, and passing judgment on whether any of
those criminals will be useful in a false flag operation. When the FBI
finds a criminal who is angry at the American government, they may
arrange for him to become even more angry by providing him with
information about how terrible the government is, and they may
provide him with explosives, weapons, and ideas on how to get revenge
on this horrible government. After
they trick him into setting off a bomb, they will arrest him, often
after leaving obvious clues as to his identity, such as carefully
placing his passport in a location where it will be quickly discovered.
As to why the FBI sometimes arrests terrorists before
they conduct an
attack, it could be because that particular group of criminals were too
difficult to manipulate, and so the FBI gave up, abandoned their false
flag operation, and arrested them.
In September 2016, the FBI announced that they were investigating
Brad Pitt's treatment of his children. Although they quickly decided
that it would be absurd for them to do so, if they care so much about
children, why don't they investigate the
accusations that Charlie Sheen and other men in Hollywood have been raping children? And why do they show more
interest in investigating Brad Pitt than they show in investigating the
is funding violent protests?
The relentless attacks on Brad
Pitt and certain other famous people by the journalists and FBI seem to
to frighten the famous people into submission. The FBI is trying
to intimidate the famous people, not
We are not going to be able to provide ourselves with a government that
we can send questions to about laws as long as we continue to tolerate
a government that is essentially a giant, Jewish crime network.
people need restrictions
Not all people are able to understand
concept of a law and figure out how to apply that concept to their
lives. Children, for example, do not have the intelligence or education
necessary to do this, and neither do the adults who are retarded,
extremely stupid, or senile.
Therefore, in order for an organization, regardless of whether it is a
nation, business, or a sports team, to demand that its members follow
the concepts of their laws, the management has to pass judgment on
which members have the ability to function properly in the team, and
which members need to be classified as "inept" and treated differently.
We cannot treat all members of an organization equally, or expect all
of them to know how to follow the rules. The people who cannot function
properly in an organization must have restrictions
put on them.
Governments and parents already apply this concept to children.
government has lots of restrictions on what children can do, such as
prohibiting them from driving automobiles, and parents also put
restrictions on what their children can do. However, we are not putting
many restrictions on the adults who cannot function properly in society.
Until recently, for example, elderly people could drive automobiles
even if their mind and body had deteriorated so much that they were
unable to pass a driver's test. The United States is now a bit more
demanding that elderly people be able to drive automobiles properly,
but we are still allowing extremely stupid and senile adults to vote,
gamble, purchase alcohol, and donate money to charities and churches.
By allowing the mentally impaired adults to anything they please, we
allow them to hurt themselves. Even worse, we allow con-artists to
cheat them out of their money, which can cause financial troubles for
them and their families, and which provides financial support to
criminals, which hurts society.
Parents and governments put restrictions on children in order to
protect the children, but we do not want to apply that concept to
adults. We prefer to believe that every adult is capable of taking care
of himself. In reality, there are many adults who are too stupid to
deal with modern society. Also, as we get old, our brain deteriorates,
so if we live long enough, we will reach a point of deterioration at
which our brain cannot do an adequate job of driving automobiles,
flying airplanes, performing dentistry, voting, or spending money.
We already pass judgment on who is
In order to put restrictions on people,
we must design a government that will put people through some type of
evaluation. Unfortunately, many people are going to lack the
self-control necessary to allow the government to classify their
parents or friends as mentally incompetent. In order for a society to
implement such a policy, we have to provide ourselves with a government
that can and will force people to accept this type
of policy. Our emotions will not like this policy. This is an example
of a policy that we must implement because it makes sense,
not because we enjoy it.
A potential problem of allowing a government to pass judgment on who
among us is inept is that if we allow the government to become
dominated by criminals or mentally defective people, then we have the
possibility that they label their critics as inept.
In order to protect
ourselves from abusive government officials, we must eliminate the
secrecy that government officials have. When they classify somebody as
inept, they must be required to post documentation on the Internet for
everybody to see so that we can pass judgment on whether they are
making intelligent decisions.
The idea of allowing government officials to pass judgment on who among
us is incompetent might seem bizarre, but it's already
happening in the
world today. As I have pointed out many times in my documents, I am not
suggesting that we do anything that has not already proven to be
successful. Rather, I am simply suggesting that we take the concepts
that have already been proven to be successful for
small organizations, or on a
small scale, and apply those successful concepts to an entire society.
For example, governments occasionally take children away from parents
that they have classified as "incompetent parents", and when couples
get divorced, the courts pass judgment on whether the mother is too
incompetent to have custody of her children.
There is nothing wrong with a government passing judgment on who among
us is an inept parent, but we should eliminate secrecy so that we can
see which government officials make the decisions, and what their
reasoning is. We need to be able to give job performance
those officials, and on a regular basis, and we
need to replace the
officials who do the worst job.
We should go even further and eliminate the secrecy about who is being
denied a pilot's licenses, a driver's license, a medical license, a
gun, and other privileges. By maintaining a public database of
information about everybody's life, we can see who is being denied
something, which government official denied it, and why it was denied.
This will help us to reduce the chances that dishonest government
officials abuse the people they do not like, and it will also allow us
to pass judgment on which officials are making the worst decisions.
Businesses regularly pass judgment on the abilities of their employees.
example, when a business needs somebody to drive a forklift,
conduct a DNA analysis, or repair an electron microscope, they pass
judgment on which of the employees have the qualities necessary to do
the job properly. They do not give every employee
the right to do
whatever they please. Everybody in a business has to earn
Furthermore, businesses do not assign privileges permanently.
no such concept as "tenure" among businesses. For
example, if an
employee is chosen to conduct a DNA analysis, he is not given tenure by
the business to conduct the analyses for the rest of his life. If he
does not do an adequate job during the following week, he may be
removed from that position.
We should apply the same principles to an entire society. Nobody should
have the right to drive an automobile; it should be a privilege that
people earn. Furthermore, that privilege should not be assigned
permanently. When a person gets so old that he cannot drive an
automobile properly, his license should be revoked.
Likewise, nobody should have the right to use a drone, robot,
laser weapon, audio amplifier, gun, explosives, poisons, or anything
else that is potentially dangerous or irritating to other people.
People today cannot have the freedom that our primitive ancestors had.
People today have a responsibility to be a team member.
We should give everybody the right to have food to eat, water to drink,
air to breathe, a home to live in, and other basic necessities, but
nobody should have a right to use modern technology, especially not
technology that is potentially dangerous or annoying.
Everybody should be told to
interpret laws in a sensible manner and behave appropriately. If
anybody chooses to behave in an atrocious manner and justify it on the
grounds that there was no law prohibiting what they did, the government should respond:
you are too inept to understand the laws of our society, you are going
to be put on restrictions. If you continue to cause trouble, you will
be restricted to the neighborhoods that have been designated for the
mentally incompetent people, and if you continue to cause trouble in
that neighborhood, you will be evicted to the City of Misfits."
We should admit that we deteriorate with age
prehistoric ancestors did not have to deal with old age, but in this
modern world, we might want to regard human life as consisting of at
least two stages; our primary life up to the age of 50, and an
additional, second life after that.
By recognizing that we have
a second phase of life, we can adjust society to deal with the changes
that take place during that phase. For example, people at that age do not
have to raise children, they have less interest in sex, their
bodies are physically less active, and their
mind deteriorates. These changes result in people changing
their leisure activities,
and they will not be able to do the same jobs that they could do when
they were younger.
Rather than treat people over the age of 50
as if they are 20 years old, we should adjust society
to deal with this issue, such as by designing an economic system to
allow people to change jobs as they get older. Instead of expecting
people to retire, it would be better to expect
people to switch jobs as
they grow older, and to design an economy that provides them with jobs
that are more appropriate for their age.
We could give older people preference for jobs that don't require a lot
of physical strength or stamina, for example, and give them preference
for part-time jobs. Their knowledge and experience would
also be useful for schools and in supervisory positions.
might also want to change our attitudes towards marriage and divorce.
Our current attitude is that a married couple should stay together
forever, but forever is now extending many decades into that second
phase of life. Expecting couples today to remain married forever means
that a couple needs to be compatible during the first phase of life -
when they are young and raising children - and they must also be
compatible during the second phase - when they change their leisure
activities and jobs.
the world today, marriages are so unstable that it's difficult to
predict what the future generations might want to do about divorce, but
I advise the future generations to consider the possibility that many
couples will want to get divorced during that second phase of life
because their activities will change during that phase.
society is putting pressure on people to remain married forever, then
some couples might remain married even though one or both partners
would rather be divorced. Who benefits from a marriage that exists only
because of peer pressure? It might be more sensible to accept the fact
that divorce might become common during that second phase of life.
soon as some society starts experimenting with a better social
environment, they will figure out how to increase the stability of
marriages, but they may discover that even though marriages are more stable
during that first phase of life, they are not necessarily ideal for the
second phase. Rather than put pressure on people to remain married
forever, it might be more sensible to face the fact that we are now
living so long that some couples will want to get a different spouse for that
have to push ourselves to
understand and follow laws
Humans evolved for an environment in
which each of us does what we want to do. Even though our prehistoric
ancestors often worked together as a team, each person was his own
boss. Humans did not evolve to follow laws or policemen. We have a
craving to mimic one another, but we do not have a craving to follow
laws. Actually, we have a resistance to laws.
A modern society needs thousands of laws, warning signs, and
regulations. These laws organize and coordinate us, as well as protect
us. We must push ourselves into ensuring that our government creates
sensible laws, and we must push ourselves into following those laws.
The government officials who create selfish or idiotic laws, and the
people who refuse to follow laws, are hurting society.
We should not tolerate or encourage people to look for loopholes.
Instead, we should teach children that laws and other documents are
trying to transfer a concept from one person's mind to another, and that
every citizen has a responsibility to try to understand those concepts
rather than look for ways of interpreting the words in whatever manner
We should not tolerate people who exploit mistakes with, or limitations
of, our language. If a person discovers confusing phrases or mistakes
in a document, he should send a message about the confusion to the
If lots of people accidentally misinterpret a law or warning sign, then
our legal system should react by editing it to reduce confusion.
However, if we come to the conclusion that some people are deliberately
misinterpreting a law, those people should be regarded as criminals
who are violating the law. We should not describe them as being
"clever", and we should not allow them to fake ignorance or stupidity. Our
attitude should be that if they really are that stupid or ignorant,
they need to be on restrictions, like children, or evicted from society.
When most people today see a "no swimming" sign, they do not put any
intellectual effort into contemplating the issue of why the sign was
created and posted. We do not like to think, and so our natural
tendency is to decode the words in the same casual manner as if we are
reading a story to children. People are currently decoding warning
signs into images without performing any quality control, such as
asking ourselves, "What was the author trying
to tell us?"
Our schools should prepare children for society by giving them
exercises in understanding the concepts of laws and warning signs. This
would help them get into the habit of trying to figure out what an
author is trying to convey, rather than getting into the habit of
decoding words into whatever concept they find most pleasing.
Different people will decode a sequence of words into different images
no matter how much effort we put into trying to figure out what the
author meant, but when we do not apply any quality control, we will end
up with even greater differences in how we decode the words.
do we want to know the purpose
of the law?
Some people reacted to the death of the
boy at Disneyland by complaining that the no-swimming sign should have
included the reason; namely, that there are alligators
in the lake. Disneyland responded by creating a sign that warned people
about alligators and snakes, as seen in the photo to
Why do we want warning signs and laws to include the reasons
them? In some cases, it is beneficial for us to understand the purpose
of a warning sign or law, but many times we want to know the purpose
because we inherently abhor laws. We want to do as we please. We are
willing to follow laws if we agree with them, but we do not want to
follow laws that we disagree with. Therefore, we want to know the
reason for a law so that we can decide if we want to follow it.
Some people also want to know the punishment for
disobeying a law.
Those particular people provide support for the theory that punishments
will cause some people to behave in a more honest manner. However,
providing punishments is not an ideal solution. The ideal situation is
for people to follow laws because they want to, not
because they have
contemplated the issue of whether the risk of punishment is worth the
pleasure of violating the law.
Living among people who are refraining from violating our laws only
because they fear punishment is like allowing a wild animal to live in
your house and keeping it under control by threatening to hit it with a
If humans were as honest, responsible, considerate, and law-abiding as
we like to believe we are, then nobody would need detailed explanations
for our laws, and they would not care if there were any punishments. If
humans were truly willing to follow laws, we would simply follow them,
just like robots.
Of course, we would not want to live in a world in which people were so
much like robots that they mindlessly followed laws. The reason is
because we need at least a small percentage of the population to
analyze our laws to ensure that they are sensible. We don't want
everybody in society to mindlessly obey the laws. The majority of
people can be told to obey without question, but we need some people to
regularly perform quality control analyses on our government officials
government has a responsibility to ensure the laws are sensible
Since humans have a natural resistance
following laws, it is imperative for a government to put a lot of
effort into ensuring the laws and warning signs are sensible. We are
willing to follow laws that we can see the value of, but we
will be very upset if we have to follow laws that we regard as selfish,
abusive, or idiotic.
Unfortunately, whether a law is "sensible" depends upon a person's
intellectual and emotional qualities. For example, some of the laws that
the Amish community regard as "sensible" are "idiotic" to most of us.
It is impossible to design laws that everyone is happy with. When we
create a society, we have to make a decision about who among
us we are
trying to appease, and who we are going to ignore.
Our society has a lot of laws that I would describe as idiotic and
destructive. Our traffic laws make sense to me, but
many of our other laws
seem irrational. For example, a person who wants
to immigrate to America has to
ask for permission, but our government has been accepting thousands of
refugees for decades, regardless of their mental illnesses, criminal
history, stupidity, or desire to abandon their culture and language
and become an American citizen.
George Soros is spending hundreds of millions
of dollars to help bring in refugees. He does not want any of the
refugees in his neighborhood; rather, he wants them
in our neighborhoods. Why is he allowed to do that?
Why are people who have lots of money allowed to exert more influence
over society than the rest of us?
Furthermore, we don't care where people get their money from. Anybody with
lots of money has a lot of influence over American society, regardless of
whether the money has come from crime, inheritances, divorce
settlements, or gambling.
The French government wants to arrest George Soros for crimes, but we
give him sanctuary because he has lots of money. Does that make sense
to you? If a burglar or rapist from France acquired lots of money, we would undoubtedly give him sanctuary, also.
This problem is not unique to the United States. Britain is giving sanctuary
to wealthy criminals from Russia. However, the
British government does not bother to protect
the Russian criminals; many of them end up dead under mysterious
do we want to appease?
Since we cannot create laws that
everybody, a society has to make a decision on who they want to
appease. We then have to ensure that our laws are sensible to that
group of people.
The United States is dedicated to serving the underdog, the wretched
refuse, and the huddled masses. This results in a lot of laws that I
would describe as idiotic. By comparison, businesses and other
organizations design their rules to appease the management.
When an organization creates laws that make sense to at least most of
the people in management, then the managers will be able to tell the
employees who do not understand or like the rules to shut up
and obey them on the grounds that they make sense to the managers.
However, this concept will work properly only if the members of the
organization respect the management. If the members regard the managers
as corrupt, or as benefiting from nepotism, then the
members are likely to regard the rules as being idiotic or selfish.
Incompetent and corrupt managers will cause the members to develop
angry and rebellious attitudes. In order for the management to be
successful in telling the members of the organization to shut up and
obey the rules, the management must be able to convince the members
that they are truly making sensible rules.
The history of businesses, sports groups, orchestras, and other
organizations show that the most successful and pleasant organizations
are those that:
1) Design rules that appease the
management, not the majority of members, and especially not the
wretched refuse of the organization.
2) Select the more intelligent, honest, and responsible people for
management, and who avoid nepotism and crime networks.
We should apply the same principles to
city and a nation. Voters should not
be selecting the "lesser of the evils". They should be selecting only
the candidates that we can respect and admire.
Do not feed the
It is interesting to note that
Disneyland's improved warning signs included a warning not to feed the
wildlife. Perhaps they added that additional
warning because they were worried that by notifying people that there
are alligators in the lake, some people will be stimulated into feeding the
As I described in an earlier document, people enjoy feeding animals,
but not because we want to take care of the animals. Rather, women have
a powerful craving to give food to their children, and men have a
powerful craving to give gifts to their wife. These emotional cravings
will encourage us to give food to wild animals. In the process, we can
make the animals sick; we can cause the population of certain animals
to rise to unnatural levels; and we can hurt ourselves when we feed
dangerous animals, such as alligators.
The warning sign prohibited feeding "the wildlife", rather than "the alligators" because if the sign stated "Do
not feed alligators", then many people would have fed other creatures
and justified it by saying that the sign did not prohibit the feeding
of ducks, snakes, and turtles.