dumb people can
many of the sentences and phrases in the U.S. Constitution are
confusing, as I described in more detail here, it does
not require much intelligence or
education to realize that:
1) The Second Amendment provides the right
to a gun only
to teams of
2) The Constitution doesn't prohibit the ordinary
citizens from owning guns, but it doesn't provide citizens with the
to own a gun,
3) The Second Amendment provides militias with the right to
guns only for
the security of the
not for sports or entertainment. It does not even provide
individual citizens with the right to own a gun to protect their home
or family, or for hunting animals or killing rats.
Constitution allows us
to decide whether citizens should have guns
By not specifying whether citizens are allowed
to have guns, the authors of the Constitution allowed future
generations, and each city and state, to make such
decisions for themselves. Therefore, we should discuss
the issue rather than argue
over whether the Second Amendment provides us
with such rights. Some of the topics to discuss are:
Should citizens be allowed to use guns for their personal
such as shooting at paper targets, television
sets (the photo below),
watermelons, or clay
pigeons in their backyards? Or should they be restricted to using guns
sports competitions? Should they be allowed to have guns for the
protection of their home and family against criminals or corrupt
If we decided that citizens can own guns,
what minimum age
should a person be in order to own a gun?
Should citizens have to pass training courses
or get gun licenses before they can have a
gun? Can people have guns if they have been convicted of
crimes? Should citizens have access to explosive
or hollow point
they be allowed to have bullets that are made of lead,
or should they
be restricted to bullets made from iron, rubber, or plastic? Should
they be allowed to use guns that use
should they be restricted to guns that use compressed air?
Should citizens be allowed to have automatic
rifles or short-barrel
shotguns? Should cities or states be allowed to have different
rules for guns, or should every citizen follow the same
In 1939 the Supreme Court decided that Congress could
When the NRA leaders responded that the law was interfering with our
Second Amendment rights, Justice Warren
them of perpetrating “one
of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the
American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my
Burger had the courage
to reprimand citizens for promoting the false
information that the Second Amendment gave every
citizen the right to a short-barreled shotgun, but he didn't
authority to stop the NRA
from repeatedly promoting that false theory. The
end result is that we regularly hear the NRA insist that the Second
Amendment gives every American citizen the right to own any type of gun
he desires, and in any quantity, and for any purpose. And we
regularly hear the NRA whining that the government is
trying to take away our Second Amendment rights.
The NRA is giving
themselves a bad image
Why is the NRA constantly promoting a false theory? I don't
know, but four possible reasons are that the NRA leadership is:
1) So stupid that they
cannot understand the Second Amendment.
If the NRA is promoting that false theory because of any of those four
reasons, they should be disqualified from
leadership positions — and prohibited from owning a gun —
2) Ignorant, because they never bothered to read
the Second Amendment.
3) Liars who realize the Second Amendment does not
provide citizens with the right to guns, but they want a gun, so they
lie about the issue.
4) So unconcerned with reality that they interpret the Second Amendment
in the manner that they want it to
be, rather than try to understand it. In other words, they are behaving
like religious fanatics who disregard science and create a
fantasy world for themselves in which they believe
whatever they please, such as that a wonderful God will
them every time they commit a crime.
1) A leader who is too
stupid to understand the Second Amendment cannot
provide us with intelligent analyses of our laws, and is probably too
stupid to handle, store, and use a gun properly.
Ideally, the leaders of the NRA would be more educated
and intelligent than their members, and they
would provide intelligent analyses of the Second Amendment,
and other issues, and they would provide their members with intelligent
2) A leader who will not bother to read the Second Amendment,
which is only one sentence, is not going to spend
time reading other people's opinions, or educating himself about
anything. Furthermore, he is not likely to be
interested in learning how to handle, store, or use a gun properly
because that requires reading a lot more than one sentence.
3) If a leader is going to lie to us about
the Second Amendment, he is likely to lie about a lot of other things,
and may be willing to commit more serious crimes, also.
4) If a leader prefers a fantasy world rather than reality, his
guidance will be
worthless or detrimental.
How is it possible that the leaders of the NRA
can be so disgusting? It
is because the U.S. Constitution doesn't provide any checks and
balances for the leadership of organizations. The members
of an organization are responsible for providing themselves with
leadership, but the members of the NRA are just like the voters.
Specifically, they want submissive leaders who
tell them what they want to hear, not leaders who provide
with guidance and constructive criticism.
pander to their customers,
When a large business allows its employees to
form a smaller
organization within the business, such as a company bowling team, or a
team to arrange for a Christmas party, the management doesn't let that
group of employees do or say whatever they please. Rather, the
management will occasionally review their activities and pass judgment
on whether the team is beneficial to the company. If they decide that
team is worthless or detrimental, they will replace the leadership or
terminate the group.
Business executives will do almost anything their customers
ask for, but they will not do whatever they employees
ask for. Rather, the executives provide their employees with
intelligent guidance and supervision.
By comparison, the U.S. Constitution allows us to create any type of
organization we please, and none of the organizations are held
accountable for what they do, and none of our government officials have
the authority to replace the management or terminate the organization.
As a result, there are a wide variety of organizations in the USA that
are abusive, deceptive, and manipulative. The NRA, for example, is
spreading false information about the Second Amendment, and there are
various Jewish groups, such as the ADL and the Southern Poverty Law
Center, that are trying to manipulate our laws and attitudes. There are
also a variety of religions that are trying to manipulate our holiday
celebrations, covering up pedophilia, and pressuring their members into
donating money on a regular basis.
The leadership of the NRA should be replaced, but
the members are not
going to replace them for the simple reason that they joined the NRA
because they like what the leadership is doing and saying. Expecting
the NRA members to give themselves better leadership is as silly as
expecting the people who join a nudist colony to complain
about the naked people.
The people who joined the NRA were attracted to the lies
that the NRA
leaders were promoting, so they are not going to
demand that the NRA
leadership be replaced with people who interpret the Second Amendment
should provide guidance, not pander
The leaders of businesses, religions,
charities, think tanks, and other organizations are under competitive
pressure, but the pressure is not to provide
intelligent guidance, or contribute something of value to society, or
lead us in experiments to improve our culture.
Rather, in our free enterprise system, all of the organizations are
under pressure to acquire money. They usually
get money by selling products,
begging for donations, or collecting membership fees. Most of them are
making money by pandering to the public. The end
result is that our society is dominated by people who excel at titillating
the public, rather than at bringing improvements to
The leaders of our organizations should not be under pressure to make
money. The competitive pressure that they feel should be to
bring improvements to society. Instead of boasting about
sales, profits, memberships, or donations, they should boast about
achievements in improving our schools, social activities,
apartment buildings, factories, parks, health care, flood prevention
systems, and transportation
As I've described in other documents, my suggestion is to create some
new cities, and give them the type of government system that a large
business would use. Specifically, the leaders of the city would have
control over everything, just like the leaders of a business control
every aspect of their organization. The government officials would have
control of, and responsibility for, all of the factories, social
activities, sports groups, schools, restaurants, apartment buildings,
To the people living in the city, it would feel as if they were
employees of a business that is so large and wealthy that it can afford
to provide its
employees with free homes, restaurants, recreational facilities, and
In that type of city, the government would be able to determine which
products are produced, and which services are offered. The government
would have the
authority to replace the leadership of an organization, and to
dissolve an organization.
However, the government would not be a group of submissive servants who
pander to the public. Rather, the government officials would make
decisions according to
what would be best for the city.
The NRA members
one another like animals
Millions of people are mimicking
the NRA's false claim that the Second Amendment gives us the
right to have guns.
How many of those people realize that they are mimicking a
And how many are ignorant about the Second Amendment, and are
mimicking that false claim simply because of their emotional craving
to follow their leader without questioning why?
Most people, especially the people who refer to themselves as
"conservatives", have such a strong craving to follow
leader that it is difficult
to figure out which of them has a properly functioning brain.
the conservatives would select respectable people for leadership
they would follow
leaders who give them sensible advice and guidance, thereby causing
them to be a beneficial, impressive, and productive group of
Unfortunately, neither conservatives nor liberals look for leaders who
can provide intelligent analyses, constructive criticism, or guidance.
As with liberals, the conservatives
prefer to follow somebody who makes them feel
good. Therefore, since they are emotionally titillated by
what the NRA says, and since they are irritated by what Justice Burger
says, millions of
conservatives want to follow the false
theory promoted by the NRA.
The NRA is an example of why democracies don't
work well, and why it is idiotic to have leaders who are submissive
servants. To summarize it:
• Since the NRA depends upon its members for
financial support, the NRA
leadership wants to please their members, so they say whatever
the members want to hear. In other words, the leaders are following
their members, rather than providing leadership.
• When the NRA members follow their leaders,
they are following leaders
who are following them.
This idiotic situation — an organization in which the leaders and
members are following
one another — is a problem with all organizations that people join for
a leisure activity, rather than join because they need to make money.
• The end result is that there is no
leadership in the NRA. The people
create a situation
that is analogous to a group of sheep in a circle who are following one
another (in the photo).
Furthermore, the U.S. Constitution encourages this idiotic situation by
creating a submissive government, and the free enterprise system causes
businesses to pander to the public, which is almost as stupid as
pandering to their own employees.
leadership is easily taken over by
To complicate the issue of leadership, when the
members of an organization want
their leaders to be submissive servants, they make it easy for
criminals to take control of the organization. The reason is
when the members
are looking for a submissive servant, rather than a leader, even a
mentally disturbed criminal can be a submissive servant,
thereby fooling the members into letting him get into a leadership
Once the criminals are in positions of leadership, they can help their
friends get into positions of importance, and they can get rid of the
honest people. Then they can exploit the organization for money or
other benefits, and they can also slowly change the organization.
This is also happening with democracies, such as America. The voters
easily fooled into electing deceptive, dishonest candidates who
the voters with praise, compliments, and promises, but who are working
crime networks. Anybody, even an uneducated, mentally disturbed
criminal, can tell the voters what they want to hear. It doesn't
any talent to pander to voters. Therefore, it is easy for criminals to
appeal to the voters who are looking for a submissive representative.
If the voters were to instead demand leadership, then they would make
it difficult for criminals to be elected because the voters would
candidates to see which of them provides the most intelligent analyses,
has the most useful constructive criticism, and the most intelligent
suggestions for improvements. The voters would also analyze the past
performance of the candidates and look for leadership
abilities in their previous jobs.
The criminals and incompetent people would not have the
talent necessary to pass those analyses. Only people with real
leadership abilities would survive that type of analysis.
The American government officials are supposed to be submissive
servants of the voter, not leaders. Therefore, the candidates in an
political contest are not in a competitive battle
to show their
leadership abilities. Rather, they are in a contest to
determine who is better at promising the voters
whatever they want; praising the voters; telling the voters whatever
they want to hear; and blaming the nation's problems on some other
of people or some foreign nation.
No intelligence, talent, or previous achievements are necessary to win
that type of contest. This allows people to win a political
contest even if they have mental disorders, have been a failure in
their life, or are blackmailed puppets of a crime network.
Actually, that type of contest favors the people who are the most
deceptive, selfish, and inconsiderate. The reason is because the
honest, responsible people are not going to want to lie to
the voters, and so they will not be as successful in telling
voters what they want to hear, or giving praise to the voters, or
blaming the nation's problems on other people. Honesty does
not help in a contest in which the candidates have
to compete to please a group of ignorant voters who want a submissive
are following women,
not providing leadership
These concepts apply to organizations of all
sizes, including two people, specifically, a man and
woman. In other words, submissive leadership is detrimental even in a
During prehistoric times, the women were dependent upon men for food
and protection, and that caused the teenage girls to want to get
married quickly. An unmarried adult woman in that era would suffer. The
prehistoric men would pamper their wives and daughters with food
and gifts, and treat them like Queens, but the men
were leaders who provided guidance for their wives and
During the past century, however, technology has brought a very
change to our social environment. Specifically, women are no longer
dependent upon men. Women today can now acquire plenty of food,
clothing, and other material items simply by getting a job, and they
don't have to worry about being protected from wolves or neighboring
tribes, and since we are no longer nomadic, a single woman doesn't have
to worry about making a temporary home to sleep in at night.
These changes have reduced the pressure on teenage girls to quickly
find a husband. Furthermore, birth control has allowed women to get
into relationships without committing to marriage.
These changes in our social environment have caused women to be less
concerned about finding a husband. The men, however, continue to have
cravings for women that our prehistoric ancestors had. Actually, we
probably have more of a craving for women today
modern technology is allowing the women to look much prettier, thereby
stimulating our emotions even more. To make our situation even worse,
many businesses are trying to increase their sales by stimulating men
with unusually pretty women. Therefore, men are being sexually
stimulated every day by businesses, further increasing our
desire for a woman.
The end result is that the men today have abnormally intense
cravings for women, but the women have less of a
desire for a husband than the prehistoric women. This results in the
men today becoming more submissive. Instead of providing guidance and
leadership, the men are pandering to the women.
should provide leadership to women,
not pander to them.
The men today who are afraid to oppose feminism
are encouraging feminism by remaining silent about the issue. Even
worse are the men who are willing to lie to the
women, such as agreeing with the women that it is wonderful that women
are finally liberating themselves from thousands of years of abuse and
Those men are encouraging women to believe a feminist fantasy,
rather than push the women into accepting reality.
They are making our situation worse
by pandering to the women.
Men and women are not going to improve our
relationships by telling one another what we want to hear. We will
improve our relationships when we study humans, learn about ourselves,
and use that knowledge to figure out how to provide ourselves with a
more appropriate social environment.
Unfortunately, if only one of us stands up to the feminists, we are
going to be attacked. We need help!
people don’t care what
authors of the Constitution intended
Earlier in this document I gave four possible
reasons as to
why the NRA leaders are promoting a false theory, and #4 (withdrawing
into a fantasy world), seems to be one of the most common reasons that
people are misinterpreting the Second Amendment.
As I have mentioned in other
animal and human minds don't
about reality. Instead, we prefer to do and believe whatever titillates
Unless we have a lot of self-control, our desire for emotional
titillation will cause us to interpret the world in the manner that is
the most emotionally pleasing. We will believe
whatever makes us feel good, and disregard or deny whatever we
don't like, even if it is obvious that we are
supporting a false theory.
For example, a person who wants a gun will be
emotionally attracted to an NRA official who tells him that the Second
Amendment gives him a right to a gun, and he will be irritated when
responds that the NRA official is perpetrating a fraud by making such a
claim. If that person doesn't
have much self-control, he will follow the NRA official, who makes him
feel good, rather than Justice Burger, who upsets him.
have some candy.”
What is the difference between:
• A child who follows a pedophile who offers
Both the child and the adult are behaving like stupid animals
follow whoever titillates them, and this can result in both of them
suffering in the long run.
• An adult who follows an NRA official who is making a false
about the Constitution?
A person who has a low level of self-control, or who is ignorant about
how his emotions try to influence his decisions, may believe a theory
that is obviously idiotic if that theory is emotionally appealing to
him. For some examples of stupid theories that are very popular
around the world:
• Each of us has a strong emotional craving
to be at the
top of the social
hierarchy, so we are
attracted to the concept that we are an important
person who is good looking, talented, intelligent, and desirable. We
are upset by the concept that we have undesirable characteristics.
The less control we have over our emotional cravings, the more strongly
we will ignore or
undesirable characteristics, and exaggerate our talents and
achievements, resulting in what we refer to as arrogance, vanity,
pride, or conceit.
In order to reach your intellectual potential, you need to:
• Our emotions are attracted to the concept
that there is a loving God who will forgive us
every time we misbehave. As a result, millions of people believe in
that concept simply because it makes them feel good,
not because they have supporting evidence for it.
• Our emotions are attracted to the concept that we will be
transported to a wonderful heaven when we die. Our
emotions are repelled at the thought that our life is completely
finished when we die, and that we will decompose just like the animals.
1) Be aware that your
emotions try to influence your decisions.
Many of the people who believe in an idiotic theory have the
intelligence necessary to realize that they are supporting a stupid
theory, but they either don't have enough self-control to believe a
more sensible theory, or they don't make any attempt to
control their emotions because they are so ignorant about the human
they don't realize that our emotions try to
2) Have enough self-control to suppress or ignore
We tend to
interpret life as we want
it to be, not as it is
Our emotions push us into interpreting the
world in the manner that we
want it to be, rather than try to understand what it really
is. I mentioned this characteristic years ago when I pointed
that everybody who reads a religious
document tends to ignore the aspects of the document that they don't
and interpret the other sections in whatever manner they
please. This causes each person to develop a slightly different
the religion. Over many centuries, the slight variations build up to
create hundreds of variations of Christianity, Judaism, and
Even if you are not interested in religion, you are
likely to behave in
that same manner. For example, if a person
wants to own a gun, then he is likely to interpret the Second
Amendment as giving
him a right to a gun. If he does not want people to
have guns, then he is likely to interpret the amendment as
restricting guns to the police and
interpret visual images accurately
In addition to believing what we want to
believe, there are some characteristics about us that we ought
to be aware of because they can cause us to misinterpret reality. One
those characteristics is that our brains are imperfect
in regards to analyzing the information from our ears, eyes, and other
the patterns below, for example, a computer with a camera would be able
deduce that the seven gray lines in the pattern along the left are
parallel to one another, and that the seven diagonal lines in the
the right are also parallel, but to a
human mind, they are not
We have a monkey’s
brain, not a computer
We cannot trust what we see.
use our eyes as scientific instruments. The
problem is not with our eyes, however. It is with our brain.
We have a monkey's brain that evolved
to survive a battle for life. Our brain was not
designed to understand the universe, develop an accurate view
of reality, or
even enjoy life.
If you believe that we were created by a loving God, then you will
assume that we are supposed to enjoy life, and that creates the dilemma
explaining why a loving God would cause so many humans to suffer. Why
are there so many retarded people, Siamese twins, and people with
multiple sclerosis? Why are so many people born with cleft palates,
blindness, tiny penises, crooked teeth, and defective livers?
Why are so many people suffering from such mental disorders as
hallucinations, schizophrenia, shyness, and violent tantrums?
Religious people promote the theory that God created men and women
to form marriages and raise children,
so why are there so many men and women who want to be homosexual,
or who feel as if they have the body of the wrong sex,
or who have a mixture of both male and female sexual organs?
Religious people have no explanation for the suffering of the human
race, but if you can accept the evidence that humans are just monkeys,
then it all makes sense; specifically, animals were not designed to
enjoy life. We were designed only to survive long enough to
successfully reproduce. Whether we enjoy life is irrelevant as
far as nature is concerned. I will give a few examples to explain this
We were not
designed to enjoy food
The reason animals
eat is to fuel their bodies, not
to enjoy their meals. When animals
find food, they do not enjoy the food. Rather, they
are in a competitive battle for food, so they swallow large chunks of
food rapidly. They do not spend time enjoying the
Both humans and animals like the
taste of certain foods, but the emotional pleasure we receive
from food is not intended to allow us to enjoy our
meals. Rather, that pleasure evolved only to cause us to eat
the foods that are nutritious to our species, and avoid the foods
that are inappropriate to us.
Whether we enjoy food depends on
our decisions. We have the option of
swallowing large chunks of food rapidly,
like an animal, but we also have the option of eating at a slow pace
and enjoying the food.
bodybuilders eat more food than they actually want, thereby requiring
themselves to force themselves to eat. They are not always enjoying
their meals. Many of their meals are a chore,
We also have the option of arranging our food in a visually attractive
manner, and we have the option of getting together with other people so
that we can enjoy people and food at the same time. We also have the
option of getting together with people only for drinks, such as coffee,
beer, or orange juice. When we are only drinking something, it is
easier for us
to also listen to music, watch people dance, or watch a recreational
event, thereby providing us with lots of entertainment opportunities.
Whether you and other people enjoy your meals depends upon your
decisions. It depends upon your mental qualities, and your attitude
towards life. We
have virtually unlimited options with food, so if we
have the courage to explore our options, we will discover a
of options that we enjoy.
For example, in my documents I suggest we design cities so that
restaurants are scattered among gardens and parks so that they are in
beautiful, quiet settings, and that the city provide us with meals for
free. To reduce boredom, the restaurants would have different
decorations and styles of furniture, and some would be indoors and
others would be outside.
In cold and rainy climates,
some restaurants would be enclosed in glass, like the one
think that type of city will increase our enjoyment of meals
because it will be more relaxing to eat when we don't have to be
concerned about money, credit cards, or tips, and when we are
bothered by the sight, sound, and fumes of automobiles and asphalt
I also recommend stopping
the practice of setting aside the tops of buildings for penthouses for
wealthy people and use them for community property, such as social
clubs and restaurants. This would give everybody the opportunity to eat
while looking out at the city, or while watching the rain, lightning,
snowstorms, or moon.
Furthermore, since the restaurants would not
be designed for profit, there would be plenty of tables for just one
person to enjoy a meal by
himself, as well as tables for two or three people.
I also recommend reducing the cooking temperatures for a lot of our
foods in order to improve the flavor, and to reduce the air pollution
caused from smoke and fumes, and to reduce the mess that must be
cleaned up afterwards. I also suggest experimenting with plastic
forks in order to reduce noise, and eliminate the sensation
We have a tremendous number of options in regards to providing
ourselves with meals, and in designing restaurants, cities,
eating utensils. If we would start the experiments, we would
undoubtedly discover that there are lots of ways to increase our
enjoyment of meals that nobody has yet
However, it should be noted that many of our options require
thinking, experimenting, working in a team for the benefit of the
group, and cooperating with other people. Animals do not
intellectual or emotional ability to explore their options with food,
and humans who are incredibly stupid, or who have almost no
will also be unable to explore their options. By comparison, the more
advanced a person's brain is, the more options he can choose from.
The options that I have suggested may require mental qualities
that most people do not have. For example, I
suggest that the city
provide food, homes, and material wealth for free,
but how many people
can handle that environment? For example, how many people will have
motivation to do a job properly when they can get whatever they want
When people today are provided with free food, such as on some cruise
ships, smorgasbords, weddings, and parties, some people are very
wasteful, and some people overeat, just like stupid animals. And when
some people have free access to cameras, tools, and other material
items, they show no interest in taking care of the items, or even using
We have a lot of options in our life, but they require people who have
abilities above that of an animal. Our options require us to exert
self-control, think, explore the unknown, and experiment with our
lives. We also have to be able to suppress our selfish cravings enough
so that we can join a team and work together for goals that are
beneficial to the entire group.
Our most advanced options require the most advanced mental abilities.
For example, in order for a city to be successful in offering free
food, housing, and material wealth, we need people who are much more
advanced than animal because it requires people to be able to
avoid wasting and abusing
the food and material items, and who will work properly at jobs even
there is no financial pressure for them to work. What percentage of the
human population is advanced enough to make that type of city a success?
We were not
designed to enjoy sex
or marriage, either.
If you can understand that we were not intended to
enjoy food, and that
we need advanced mental qualities in order to do so, it might be easier
for you to understand how the same concept applies to other issues,
such as sex and marriage.
Both men and women have a desire for sex, but it is not because a
loving God wants us to enjoy it. Rather, these cravings are intended
only to push us into reproducing. Further evidence that we were not
intended to enjoy sex is that men and women have incompatible
sexual cravings. For example, men want sex much more than women,
and another problem is that men don't need women to do anything in
particular to get us in the mood for sex, whereas women tend to
require a lot more foreplay and effort from the man. If a
loving God had designed us, he would have made our sexual cravings
compatible, rather than antagonistic.
The incompatibilities between men and women make sense if you
agree that our enjoyment of sex is only to cause males and females to
reproduce. Nature does not care whether we truly
making the females so difficult to get in the mood for sex, the males
have to prove they have a lot of stamina and physical energy, and a
strong interest in the female. Another advantage to making females less
interested in sex is that it reduces venereal diseases and infidelity.
Male and female animals have an extremely crude relationship. The males
occasionally engage in a crude sex act, but most of the time the male
and female animals are taking care of their children, not doing things
together or enjoying one another. Male and female animals don't have
conversations, and they don't get together for leisure activities or
socializing. They don't even eat together. There are moments when
they are coincidentally eating at the same time, but they are not
enjoying a meal together. Rather, each is independently swallowing
chunks of food as rapidly as possible.
In order for men and women to truly enjoy sex and a relationship, they
need qualities beyond that of an animal. They need to understand their
own emotional feelings, and those of the opposite sex, and they need
enough self-control and intelligence to adjust their behavior to make
it more compatible
with that of their spouse.
We should learn as much as possible about the differences between men
and women so that we can use that knowledge to design a social
environment that fits what we truly are rather than what we like to
think we are. Businesses need that knowledge to create a
working environment for women that is more appropriate for them.
Individual men and women also need that knowledge so that
each of us can adjust our decisions and behavior so that we can form a
stable relationship with the opposite sex.
Unfortunately, it is not yet possible for any society to learn about
the differences between men and women because there are so many people
who have tantrums when somebody says there is a difference between us.
A tremendous number of people insist that men and women are unisex
creatures, and that those of us who believe otherwise are a sexist,
misogynist, bigot, or chauvinist. There are an even larger number of
people who want to prohibit schools from teaching children about sex,
marriage, and related issues.
To aggravate the situation, most parents are too embarrassed or
ignorant to teach their children about these issues, and most women
are too inhibited to talk to their husband about sex issues.
Finally, a lot of people, probably most, are simply too dumb and/or
ignorant to have a sensible conversation about their emotional
feelings, sex, marriage, and relationships.
The end result is that children today are not
learning much about men
and women, relationships, or sex. Instead, they are becoming confused
adults who pick up bits and pieces of unrealistic and conflicting
attitudes and expectations about marriage and sex, and this results in
a lot of frustration, arguments, and divorce.
I also believe that the relationships between men and women are being
harmed by the people in the media who frequently produce television
programs, advertisements, and movies that stimulate men with sexual
images; show men and women in unrealistic relationships; and make women
seem more sexually active than they actually are. There are also some
television programs that show men as incompetent, crude nitwits that
need a wife or mother to take care of them.
media is promoting a
distorted view of men, women, marriage, sex, weddings, and
this can cause children to develop unrealistic expectations of
life, which can result in them wasting years of
their life. The media is also putting a lot of subliminal
sexual messages in advertisements and television programs.
also stop tolerating subliminal sexual messages,
as the Disney cartoon (left) in
which Jessica Rabbit is showing her crotch, and the bears in the
billboard that is
(or was) at this
location in Washington state.
The triangular logo in the billboard above looks like a modified
version of a pedophile symbol. If you are unfamiliar with
pedophile symbols, I show two of them here.
In order for men and women to improve their relationships and
marriages, we need to put into leadership positions men who have the
to stand up to the feminists and provide women and children
guidance. We need men who can publicly state that a woman's mind
evolved for raising children and socializing, not for being a leader,
explorer, or engineer.
Women, as a group, are less intelligent than men, and the men who
see that should be classified as too stupid to be
put into a leadership
position. The men who can see it, but cannot admit to it in public,
should be classified as too emotionally weak for a
Women are also less adventurous and have a stronger desire to
follow a crowd of people. Men need to understand women enough to
provide their wives and daughters with intelligent guidance, rather
than do what they are doing today, which is to pander to their feminist
In our world today, I can understand why men are afraid to publicly
admit that men and women are different. Specifically, those of us who
admit to it will be standing by ourselves, and we will be attacked by
lots of women, and we will be unlikely to attract a wife. However,
if we had leaders who would admit to this, then the men would not
be afraid to admit to it.
designed to enjoy sports
These concepts also apply to the issue of sports and recreational
activities. Animals could be described as having recreational events,
such as when puppies and kittens chase each other,
recreational events are extremely crude. Sometimes they are
following their emotional cravings to hunt, and
other times they are
following their cravings to fight competitors and
If humans do not exert self-control, our recreational events will be as
crude as those of the animals. Specifically, the events will be
only to titillate our cravings to hunt or fight. Perhaps they
resemble the "fight
clubs", but with less, if any, supervision.
By comparison, if we exert some self-control, then instead of merely
titillating our emotional cravings with simulated hunts and fights, we
can design recreational activities that have rules to make them safe,
and which provide
some benefit to us, such as exercise or socializing. We can also
design some recreational activities to get us outside so that we can
enjoy the trees, flowers, sunshine, and cloud formations, and we can
design some recreational activities for the evening so that we can
enjoy the moon, stars, and whatever type of lighting displays we want
to put in our city.
If we develop a better crime policy and reduce crime to extremely low
levels, then we don't need to fill the city with bright security
lights. We can use lights for decorative purposes instead. We could put
decorative lights on buildings, along footpaths, and
in swimming pools, such as the pool in the photo below.
This will make the nighttime social and recreational activities more
are currently wasting our resources and artistic talent by
providing wealthy people with small but decorative swimming
pools, patios, and gardens. My recommendation is to put our resources
and labor into community property rather than personal
property. A "City of Castles" would consist of clusters of
tall apartment buildings and office
buildings that are surrounded by decorative swimming pools,
patios, gardens, foot paths, bicycle paths, social clubs, recreational
areas, restaurants, and parks that everybody
would have free access to simply by taking an elevator ride to the
We have a lot of options in regards to sports and recreational
activities, and in the decorations and design of our city. However, all
of our options require us to exert self-control, get together with
other people, discuss our options, and experiment with our options. We
must be able to work together in a team, control our
selfish cravings, and do what we agree is best for the group. The more
advanced our minds are, the more options we have to choose from.
Conversely, the less control we exert over ourselves, the more similar
to an animal we will be, and the fewer options we have for our cities.
Our cities today are not much more advanced
than what the birds did in the photo
to the right. Each of us is focusing on building a home for ourselves
with no regard for what other people are doing. The end result is a
city that is a chaotic, unplanned jumble of homes of different sizes,
qualities, and styles, and an ugly mixture of roads, telephone poles,
parking lots, and garbage dumps. It also results in a city that
occasionally has problems with flooding and overcrowding,
Most of the people who have risen to leadership positions have shown no
interest in getting together to plan and organize our cities,
what is best for all of us as a group. Rather, most of our leaders, and
most of the citizens, are still behaving like selfish animals who fight
over land and material wealth. Our leaders are interested in providing
themselves with giant mansions rather than
experimenting with cities that we can all enjoy.
order for us to create some truly wonderful cities, we need a different
group of people in control of society. The people who rise to the top
positions today did not
get to those top positions because they excelled in finding
improvements to society. Rather, they excelled in making money, or
pandering to voters, or some other selfish and/or dishonest activity.
We need leaders who excel at providing us with intelligent analyses and
guidance, and who have the courage to lead us into experiments to
create a better society for all of us.
We also need a better
understanding of ourselves so that we can design a city that will give
us what we need, rather than what our crude emotions want. That
requires us to
understand our true qualities
rather than follow some religious fantasy that we are a creation of a
loving god, and rather than follow some liberal fantasy that our mind
is like a piece of clay that molds itself to the environment.
We must face the evidence that our minds are
brains, not flawless computers. Optical illusions show us
that our brains accidentally distort visual
information, but our brains also deliberately
distort some information from our ears, eyes, nose, and other
senses in order to
example, our brain
fills in the "blind spot" of our visual
image. This makes the image more appropriate for us, but it gives us an
inaccurate view of the world. If a telescope, microscope, or camera
were to fill in a section of its image, it would be regarded as
Our brain and/or nose modifies odor information to
an even greater extent. Specifically, after we smell a particular odor,
our brain and/or nose will somehow suppress that particular
we can sense the other odors.
For example, I like the odor of freshly ground coffee
(except for the extremely roasted coffess that have a burnt odor),
but if I try to
smell the coffee again within a few seconds,
the odor is noticeably less intense. Either the sensory organs in my
are refusing to
send the information to my brain, or my brain is ignoring
the grounds that I just smelled that particular odor, and my brain
for other odors. I have to wait quite a while before the
coffee has a strong scent again.
Our sense of smell was not designed to give us an
accurate view of the world. It was designed for our survival. As a
result, it is difficult to use humans in taste and smell tests. A
instrument will give the same results every time, but a
human nose and brain will not.
Yanny or Laurel?
Recently somebody posted this
particular sound pattern on the Internet that shows that our brain
cannot accurately interpret auditory information,
either. This sound could be described as an "audio illusion". Some
people hear "laurel", but others hear
"yanny". I thought it sounded more like "yammy", but
regardless, how is it possible for different
people to interpret the same sound in such a different manner?
The answer is that it is similar to being near a young girl who
has a high-pitched voice, and an adult man who has a low pitched voice.
When both of them are speaking at the same time, your ears will hear a
mixture of both voices, which would create an audio signal that is
undecipherable if both of them had exactly the same pitch and volume
However, since their voices are at different frequencies, and since
the human brain seems to have a crude ability to filter audio, if we
focus on the high pitch of the girl, we will be able to hear what she
is saying, and if we focus on the low pitch of the man, we can hear
what he is saying.
In that audio clip, the "yanny" sound is at a high
pitch, and it seems to be at a low volume level, whereas "laurel" seems
to cover the entire frequency range, and it seems to be at
a higher volume level. Because "yanny" is
at a high
frequency, people who have trouble
frequencies – either because of infections, listening
music too loud, or genetic differences in their ears – will have
trouble hearing the high-pitched "yanny", so they will hear "laurel".
I heard "Laurel" only after I
opened the audio file
in an audio editor (I used Audacity, which
is free here),
and then used the low-pass
to suppress the high frequencies. I had to set the Cutoff
to between 1000 to 1500 hertz, and the Rolloff
to at least 6 decibels, as in the image to
make the situation more interesting and confusing, as I was
experimenting with the low and high pass filters, I began hearing
"laurel" all the time, even after cutting off the high
was wondering if Audacity had a bug that was causing it to accidentally
play only the low-frequency version, but
even after I
closed and restarted Audacity, or when I played the audio with Windows
media player, it still sounded like "laurel". After not listening to
the sound for many minutes, I went back to my "normal" state
Not interested in experimenting with the audio
but want to hear it? Download this MP3 file of the original in which it
repeats the audio five times:
And here is that same file except that the 1st, 3rd, and 5th is put
through a high-pass filter in which the cutoff
frequency was about 1500
hertz, and the rolloff was 48 decibels:
That will make the "yanny" easier to hear. That
should alternate between "yanny" and "laurel", although i often
hear "yerry" or
"yammy" instead of "yanny".
And here is that same file
except that the 1st, 3rd, and 5th is put
through a low-pass filter in which the cutoff
frequency was 1500
hertz, and the rolloff was 36 decibels:
If you have trouble hearing
"laurel", you should be able to
hear it in that file.
later that evening, when I listened to the same audio file, all I heard
was "laurel", even after I put the audio through a high-pass filter. I
could not hear yanny no matter what I did. What had happened? Was my
brain so tired of
hearing yanny that it was ignoring it? Or was earwax building up
in my ear, making it difficult to hear the high frequencies? Or do
our ears or brain change its audio characteristics from day to night?
we become more sensitive to low frequencies at night?
I decided to take notes on what I was hearing each day and at
what time of the day. I played the same audio file as soon as I woke up
the next morning. I was expecting to hear yammy because that is what I
heard when I listened to the audio for the first
time, but I heard "laurel". Why was I now
then put the audio through a high-pass filter, and that allowed me
to hear yammy. However, when I began playing both the filtered
audio and the non-filtered audio, one after the other, I was soon
hearing only laurel. Later that evening, I could
only hear laurel, even with the high-pass
The next morning all I heard was laurel, even with the high-pass
filter. An hour later I could hear yammy with a high-pass filter, but
it lasted only a while and then switched back to laurel. An hour after
that I heard something like "yerry" with a high-pass filter. Throughout
the next few hours I would occasionally play the audio that I put
through the high-pass filter, and I
continued to hear "yerry".
Next I decided to play the
unfiltered audio, and I heard laurel. I then immediately
the audio that I put through the high-pass filter, but instead of
hearing "yerry", I heard laurel.
The next day was similar in
that I would normally hear laurel, even after putting it through a
high-pass filter. There was one time that day when the I heard "yerry"
with the high-pass filter, and then I decided to play it over and over
while focusing on the word "laurel" in my mind, and after about 4
repetitions the audio sounded like "laurel".
Perhaps my mind
would have switched to hearing laurel on its own, but it
seems that I had managed to make my mind switch from hearing
yerry to hearing laurel simply by concentrating on the word laurel.
When the audio that had been through the high-pass filter starts
sounding like laurel, I can make it return to hearing "yammy" or
"yerry" if I replay the audio over and over while repeating the
word "yammy" or "yerry" to myself. This is more evidence that
have a certain ability to make my mind interpret a sound in the manner
I want to interpret it.
Why doesn't my mind interpret the audio in the same way each time?
Perhaps listening to yanny over and
over caused my brain to ignore it
so that it could analyze the noise for other sounds, similar
way my sense of smell will block out the odor
of coffee in
order to pick up some of the other, more faint odors. If our brain is
blocking sounds, that would create an even larger difference between us
in the way we interpret sounds because the circuitry that does
the blocking will be slightly different in each of us.
The next day I was hearing laurel almost always, even
after putting the audio through a high-pass filter. If other people had
access to my computer, I would be certain that one of them had secretly
switched the audio file.
Finally, after not listening to that audio for a couple of days, it
once again sounded like "yammy". However, as soon as I put it through
the low pass filter to hear "laurel", it switched to Laurel, and I
could not get it to sound like yammy no matter how I filtered it.
This brings me to an interesting issue. Specifically, are we sometimes
interpreting people's words in the manner we want?
we listen to people speak, they often mumble a word, or a noise in the
background interferes with one of their words. When
that happens, we
should ask the person to repeat the word, but there may be times when
our mind decodes the mumbled sound into the word that we are expecting
– or wanting – to hear,
and without our awareness that our mind did this. We would end
with an incorrect analysis of his sentence. Another person listening to
the same conversation might interpret the mumble as a different word,
thereby creating an argument over what the person said.
the people would realize that they were interpreting the mumbled sound
differently unless they played an audio recording of the conversation
and noticed that each person was hearing a different word for that
This, incidentally, shows another reason why it
is important for us – especially the police – to record audio
conversations rather than take notes or depend upon our
A computer with a microphone will
always give the same results when analyzing the same sound, but after
many days of listening to that
laurel and yanny sound, it is obvious that my sense
of hearing is
for analyzing sounds. It is more evidence that the human senses were not
designed to be scientific instruments. We are just monkeys, and our
vision, hearing, smell, and taste evolved to help us survive
a battle for life, not to understand the world.
This is black-and-white image; there are no
Optical illusions show us that we cannot
what we see with our eyes, and the laurel and
yanny audio shows that we
cannot believe what
we hear. We need to analyze the world with
scientific instruments, and we need to find scientific support
all of our theories.
Do we develop "audio
My analysis of the laurel-yanny sound was casual and brief, so I
didn't learn much, but I suspect that it would be useful to conduct
some serious, scientific studies of how different people interpret
that sound, and other mumbles and noises. One reason is that I
wonder if we are developing "audio habits".
first time we do some physical activity that we have never done before,
as walk, ride a bicycle, or shuffle a deck of cards, we have to
what we are doing, and we make lots of mistakes. However, when we do it
over and over, our mind learns how to do it. Some people describe this
as "developing a habit," or "learning a skill".
How do we
develop a habit? What exactly is happening inside our mind? Although we
don't know the details, developing a habit requires memorizing a
sequence of muscular movements. Once our mind has memorized the
sequence, we can shuffle the cards, ride a bicycle, or take a walk, without
about how to do it. Our muscles seem to move by themselves, but in
reality, our mind is moving our muscles according to the list of
movements that it has memorized.
Perhaps our mind does something
similar with sounds. In other words, the first time we hear a sound,
our mind may put it through a lot of processing in order to figure out
what the sound is, and what it means to us. If we hear the same sound
over and over, our mind may remember the sound and what it means. Then,
the next time we hear the sound, instead of wasting time to
process the sound, our mind scans our memory, notices that we've heard
times already, and gives us the meaning that it associated with the
Perhaps after repeatedly listening to the laurel-yanny audio,
my mind came to the
conclusion that the dominant component of that audio is "laurel", and
so now it wants to avoid processing the data and tell me that it is
If our mind is trying to save time by memorizing sounds and
their meanings, then this characteristic will be another reason that we
interpret sounds differently because the circuitry that performs this
function will be slightly different in each of us.
I also suspect that our brain has some crude audio filtering
functions, such as a high-pass filter to make it easier for us to
hear children, and a low pass filter so we can hear adults and growling
animals. If we have such filters, they are operating automatically,
which means that we never know when our brain is filtering
will cause even more discrepancies in how we interpret the world.
Furthermore, everybody's filter circuitry will be genetically unique.
I also have the impression that our mind has a feature in which it
analyzes sounds in order to
find what we expect the sound to be. In other
words, if we are
expecting to hear "laurel", our mind will deliberately analyze the
to see if it can find "laurel", and if it finds "laurel", it will be
satisfied and stop the analysis. Our mind may not realize that it could
also have found "yanny".
While such a feature might seem to be
idiotic, it would be valuable to our prehistoric ancestors. For
example, if a person was in a forest and suspected that there was a
wolf in the area, the image in his mind of a wolf would cause his mind
to analyze the sounds to
see if any resemble the noises made by a wolf. By rapidly searching for
a wolf noise, his brain would more quickly find a wolf noise, and in a
prehistoric environment, that could make the difference between life
If the person is instead
looking for his lost child, the image in his mind of his frightened
child would cause his mind to analyze the sounds to
find the high-pitched voice and crying of a child, and the words a
might yell out.
ability to filter audio, and to analyze audio for a particular type of
sound, might explain how we can hear an individual person speaking when
other people are having other conversations at the same time. When we
are among a group of people who are speaking at the same time, we can
focus our attention on one of the people, and we can often hear what he
is saying. Perhaps the reason we can do this is because our mind is
analyzing the sounds to see which are matching his particular frequency
and volume level.
If our mind has the ability to analyze sounds to
find particular types of sounds, it is another feature that we don't
have much control over. All we can do is put an image in our mind and
focus on the sounds made by whatever we are visualizing. Also, each of
us will have different genetic circuitry for that type of processing,
so that will be another reason that each of us interprets the same
sounds slightly differently. It would also explain why some people have
an easier time hearing a conversation when there is a lot of background
noise, and other people complain that there is too much noise for them
to hear what is being said.
vision get blurry at night?
I did not pay any attention to my eyesight as a child, but when I was
an adult, I noticed that my vision was significantly more blurry in the
evening compared to the daytime.
The blurriness was mainly for objects far away,
so perhaps it would be more accurate to say that my eyes
became "more nearsighted" at night.
I assumed that everybody had this characteristic, and that it was due
to the muscles in our eyes becoming tired
at night, and not pulling the lens into proper focus.
blurriness seemed worse if I ate a lot for dinner, especially sweet
foods, so I wondered if the blurriness was aggravated by chemical
imbalances in my blood that interfered with the muscles in my eyes, or
altered the pressure in my eyeballs.
When I mentioned to an eye
doctor that my vision is blurry at night, and that it would be better
to have a vision test in the evening rather than during the
daytime, he responded
that he never heard of such a problem, although he thought it
was possible that some diabetics have such a problem.
If we would
eliminate secrecy, put everybody through a variety of medical tests,
and maintain a public database of everybody's characteristics and life,
we might eventually understand some of our strange characteristics. How
many people besides me have blurry vision at night, and of those
people, what do we have in common? Do they have problems with thyroid
hormones, also? Or do they have problems controlling blood sugar
levels, or some other chemical in the blood?
A lot of people are paranoid of a database with detailed data about us,
but you might discover a lot of interesting and useful
information about yourself if such a database
existed, and if we had software to analyze that data and find patterns.
My voice changes at
When I was creating my
video about the 9/11 attack, I recorded some portions of the
audio in the day, and some in the evening. I noticed that I sounded
like a different person at night. I had to start over and record again,
and only during the day. I then noticed that my father's voice
also changed from morning to night. What does it mean? How
many people have this problem? Is it related to the problem of
my eyesight getting blurry at night?
Our senses are not
Each of us also has a different ability to see colors.
Some people see farther into the infrared, and others farther into the
ultraviolet, and some people have various types of color blindness. We
also have different sensitivities to color and light, allowing some
people to see colors in dim light, and some people have better night
We also have subtle differences in our sense of smell.
For example, I've noticed that some women can sense when somebody has
garlic, even though I cannot smell it.
The genetic differences
between our brain circuitry and our sensory
organs causes each of us to interpret the world in a
different manner. When we hear a dog
bark, a bird chirp, a machine make noises,
and a person scratch his fingernails on a blackboard, each of
us hears something slightly different. And
when we look around us, and smell the odors, we see and smell a
slightly different world.
we had a database with everybody's life and characteristics, we might
be able to understand some of our differences and characteristics. We
would notice that some people are exceptional at noticing certain
odors, and others can see different frequencies of light, and some
suffering a loss in hearing as a result of not wearing hearing
protection at their jobs, or because they were playing music
I mentioned here
that I find the herringbone pattern to be an annoying pattern
for clothing, but other
people like it. Is it possible that we are seeing something
slightly different when we look at it? Is it like an irritating optical
illusion to some of us, but a pleasant design to others? Perhaps one of
the reasons we
have a different taste in art is because when we look at art,
each of us sees something slightly different.
If we could connect our brain to somebody else's brain and
passively observe what
they see, hear, and smell, we would discover that what they
observe is slightly different from what we observe. Our genetic
differences in how we interpret the world could help
explain why witnesses to a crime often disagree on what they see,
smell, and hear.
In case you don't know, "monk
another alternative to sugar. As with Stevia, you will have to
experiment with the different brands and options to figure out which
one you like best for different purposes.
Our genetic differences could also explain why
we have different
reactions to foods and perfumes. Recently the
changed their formula for Stevia. It no longer has an aftertaste,
but it also no longer has the sweetening power that it used to have.
Their new version is useful for sweetening mild tasting items, but
their previous version was better for other applications, at least to
me. Somebody else may have a different opinion on which type of Stevia
is best simply because we interpret chemicals differently.
replace the free enterprise system with a more advanced system, then
instead of businesses boasting
that they have the best product, they could provide
us with a variety
different products and let each of us decide which is best.
We could make some interesting movies with this concept
Our genetic differences in how we interpret the world could
create interesting comedies, murder
and dramas. For
example, a crime could take place in an area where the security cameras
or cell phones are picking up electromagnetic interference
distorts the video and audio. When the police analyze the
recordings, they can clearly see that leader of the crime network is
referred to as "Laurel", so they look for somebody with that name who
resembles that criminal.
They eventually find a man who has a
resemblance to the criminal, and who has the name of Laurel.
to have been sleeping at his home during the night of the crime but, as
most of us, he has no way to prove that he was at home.
Laurel is arrested, and is taken to court. The jurors watch
video that implicates Laurel. One of the jury members,
Ralph, does not realize it, but he is one of a tiny minority
of the population who hears the name "Yanny" rather than "Laurel" in
that particular sound pattern. Ralph is
confused when he hears everybody claim to hear "Laurel", so
when the jury
gets together to discuss the issue, Ralph asks the others how can they
possibly convict Laurel of the crime when the audio clearly
proves that the
man's name is "Yanny". Some of the jurors suggest to Ralph
that he go to a doctor to check for
a brain tumor or ear cancer.
Ralph goes to a doctor, but the doctor
can't find anything wrong with his ears or brain, so the doctor assumes
it must be a psychological problem and tells Ralph to go to a
The psychiatrist, who refuses to consider the
possibility that our genetics determines our characteristics,
comes to the conclusion that Ralph's ego has a conflict with
superego, and so he
prescribes some mental health drugs. However, Ralph
continues to hear "Yanny" rather than "Laurel", so after several months
he goes to another
psychiatrist who wonders if perhaps his Oedipus complex is out of
control, so he prescribes some other mental health drugs, and a bit
Occasionally Ralph hears "Laurel", and
causes him and the psychiatrist to believe that he is recovering, but
it is always temporary, and he soon reverts to hearing Yanny. Ralph
ends up going from one psychiatrist
to the next, year after year, and in the process he ruins his physical
health and his relationships, and is eventually unable to hold a job.
He ends up being put into a mental hospital.
We could make comedies in which barbers, airlines, or
waitresses are taking orders over a low-quality phone network and
misinterpreting their customers. Or imagine a man who was so sensitive
to female pheromones that he
could determine, almost as accurately as a male animal, when a woman is
in the mood for sex, or about to give birth. Or, a person who
hears "yanny" but occasionally hears "laurel"
could accuse the
government of testing a mind control device that beams thoughts into
There could be dramas
in which a military official accidentally fires missiles because he
interprets sounds differently than most people. A plot
could also be about somebody who has such an unusual
sense of smell that he can often determine whether somebody is lying or
frightened by the change in odors that we emit when certain emotions
Another plot could have
witnesses to a crime that have different abilities to sense color and
contrast, causing them to have different descriptions of a crime scene,
but the police don't realize that the witnesses have different visual
abilities, so they assume one of the witnesses is lying in order to
police in the wrong direction. In reality, the witness they accuse of
lying is actually better than everybody else at determining what
many arguments over the Second
Amendment, but not the others?
Every month in the USA there seems to be a few
groups of citizens,
government officials, or organizations arguing with each other,
staging demonstrations, and filing lawsuits over the Second Amendment.
For three recent examples:
• In April 2018, the NRA and the California
Rifle and Pistol Association filed their fourth
against the state of California, this time over the proposal to
restrict the sale of bullets via the Internet.
In May 2018 the city of Boulder, Colorado prohibited
"bump stocks" and the type of guns they defined as "assault weapons",
and they raised the minimum age for gun ownership to 21. In
response, the Boulder Rifle Club filed
a lawsuit, and the Mountain States Legal Foundation threatened to sue
the city for "violations of the
Second, Fifth, and Fourteenth
Also in May 2018, President Trump and Vice President Pence spoke at a
meeting. Pence claimed that "firearms
in the hands of law-abiding
citizens" make communities safer, and Trump promised to
Second Amendment, and to support the proposal for "letting
trained teachers carry concealed weapons."
In response, Cameron Kasky, a student at the Florida high school where
were supposedly killed in February 2018 by one man with a gun,
Trump of being "a
professional liar who will say anything to appease whatever crowd he's
at"; Gabriel Giffords, the former Congresswoman,
accused Trump of allowing "his
presidency to be hijacked by gun lobbyists and campaign dollars";
and David Hogg criticized
Trump for being "kind of hypocritical"
for speaking at an NRA meeting.
must raise standards for
Those two news articles about Trump's
speech to the NRA (in the paragraph above this box)
an issue I will remind you of again. Specifically, we are
extremely low quality journalism.
After Trump spoke at the NRA meeting,
some journalists provided us with
responses from two high school students, one of
lied about being at the school
shooting; namely, David Hogg. (If you are unaware of
his lies, watch the two, brief television interviews that I
have links to at this
Some journalists also told us what Gabriel
Giffords had to say about the issue, even though such a significant
portion of her brain has been destroyed that she
would be classified as
retarded if she had been born that way.
There are millions of people in America who could have provided an
intelligent analysis of Trump's speech, but some
gave publicity to a dishonest teenager and a
Prior to the 2016 presidential elections, some journalists asked children,
such as the girl in the photo
above, if they thought Trump should be elected. Will anybody join me in
demanding that we raise standards
for journalists? We should fire journalists
who interview children or teenagers
on important issues.
By continuing to give David Hogg favorable publicity, they are
encouraging more of his obnoxious, dishonest behavior. For example, in
May 2018, he led a group of people to a retail store to lie on the
floor in order to protest
the store's support
for the National Rifle Association.
Imagine if people around the world were
to stage protests whenever they disagreed with some policy of a
business or government. In such a case, there would be protests
every day in every city by various groups
and for various causes.
These protests are not
going to solve any of the problems of a modern society. This
the behavior of an obnoxious, bratty child. This is a "temper tantrum",
and it should not be tolerated, but the police do
nothing to stop it,
and neither do the voters or government officials. And, if the
protesters are liberals,
most journalists give them favorable publicity.
The First Amendment gives us the right to "peaceably
assemble", but these protesters did not
get together to discuss their opinions, or to present the government
their complaints, or to provide information to the public. Rather, they
were deliberately trying to annoy people.
Why are so many people arguing over the Second
Amendment, but very few people argue about or file lawsuits
19th amendment, the 20th amendment, or the 25th amendment? Why
not argue about our traffic laws, or the restrictions our government
has put on pilots, medical drugs, or the sale of a house?
Obviously, the Second Amendment is more significant
to most people than the other aspects of the Constitution. I think two
reasons for this are:
1) Americans are frightened
by our high crime
There is so much crime and corruption in the
USA that tens of millions of Americans are frightened
that they will
become victims of a crime. Fear is a very powerful emotion. It will
cause us to stop what we are doing and worry about our safety.
2) America has no
leadership to stop the arguments
The conservatives tend to react to the fear of crime
by wanting weapons for protection from criminals and corrupt government
officials, whereas the liberals tend to react by hoping
that restrictions on guns will reduce the violence and crime.
By comparison, most other aspects of the Constitution do not
concern issues that are so emotionally stimulating. As a result, even
though people may disagree with other aspects of the
Constitution, they don't have as much motivation to argue about it.
When a business, military unit, or other
organization experiences a problem, the leaders
deal with it, not the members, but the
U.S. Constitution does not provide the nation with leaders. Instead, it
creates a government of submissive representatives who are
supposed to pander to their
It is the responsibility of the citizens to
tell their submissive representatives what to do about the
Second Amendment, but the citizens are not capable of getting
together and agreeing on an intelligent policy for guns. Instead, the
citizens argue with one another, and their arguments are idiotic. As a
result, the government
officials cannot resolve the issue.
The USA is analogous to a school in which the teachers are
servants who pander to the children rather than provide guidance. In
that type of school, the children would have to resolve disputes,
and if they could not, then those disputes would persist forever.
Another example of how the USA cannot resolve issues is that
we should have switched to the metric system a long time ago,
also have switched to a 24 hour clock, but we don't have leaders to
authorize the switch.
conservatives have absurd
levels of fear and paranoia
In May 2018, the Doctors for Responsible Gun
Ownership posted this
document from a pharmacist that is an example of the extreme paranoia
and fear among some American citizens. At the beginning of the
editor of the website writes,
welcome a new author today, a pharmacist working undercover in a
front-line state in the gun rights war, who prefers to remain anonymous
until escape to a free state becomes possible."
Although the editor might be trying to be amusing, there actually are
lots of conservatives who are so paranoid that they regard themselves
as "working undercover" in a "gun rights war",
and who regard themselves as victims of an
government that is trying to take away our rights to own weapons.
The author of the article is just as paranoid as the editor, and he
also promotes the false claim that we have a
right to own guns. He starts
the article by telling us that "eternal
vigilance is required to safeguard our rights."
He then gets to the main topic of his article, which is
to create paranoia about the "sinister
threat" of registering our guns. He points out
that it is becoming common for organizations to collect
data about us, but this data can be inadvertently misused, and
it can be deliberately abused. He claims that the
German people had to register their guns, and when Hitler got control
of Germany, he used that database to disarm the German people.
millions of other conservatives, the author worries that the American
government is going to use the
registered gun owners to disarm the American people.
|Stand up to the Hitler and
Although nobody has evidence that Hitler disarmed
most people believe whatever they want to believe, regardless of the
evidence. And since Nazis and Hitler have a bad image, many people,
when they don't have any intelligent supporting evidence for their
will justify it by claiming that Hitler supported the
or that their critics are Nazis.
By not standing up to people who use Nazis and
as a way of intimidating and manipulating people, we encourage more
people to do it.
It is already so common that the supporters of President Trump are
referred to as Nazis.
And if you recall, some of the Google employees are
encouraging one another to learn how to punch Nazis.
This obnoxious behavior should be suppressed, not encouraged.
want us to register our guns so they can put us on a list!”
I mentioned in other files that most animals
become frightened when they notice that another animal is looking at
them. The exception are the animals that don't have predators, such as
||“OMG! The government
wants to put me on a list of registered gun owners!”
Humans are also frightened when we notice that
somebody is watching us,
but because of genetic diversity, some of us are more concerned about
being observed than others. Some conservatives become so frightened by
the thought that somebody is watching them that they
when the government wants them to register
Like a stupid animal, those paranoid conservatives assume that they are
surrounded by dangerous predators, and so they worry that the
government is a dangerous tribe of savages that wants to attack the
citizens, and that the government wants a list of gun owners so that
they know who is capable of defending themselves. Those frightened
conservatives worry that the government will send the military to the
homes of the people with guns, and then disarm or kill those gun
eliminating the only citizens who can oppose them, which will allow
those government officials to give themselves dictatorial
of the nation.
Actually, there is a lot of evidence that the
Zionist network is trying to get control of
entire planet, so there may be a very large group of Jews and their
cohorts struggling to figure out how to take weapons away from
the American citizens so
that their crime network will have an easier time arresting or
murdering those of us
who resist them. However,
the conservatives are not
going to solve such a problem by working
themselves into a paranoid frenzy.
important to note that if we discover that our government officials, or
a network of Jews, are secretly plotting to get dictatorial
control of us, we would be foolish
to worry about being put on a list of
registered gun owners. The solution is to arrest
officials or Jews, and experiment
with a better government system, and a better method of selecting
government officials so that we don't have to worry about such
The proper solution to a crime network is to investigate it
and destroy it. It is idiotic to
react with paranoia and fear. We do not
protect ourselves from criminals, crime networks, or corrupt
government officials by purchasing guns and
hiding like a frightened rabbit. We need to find men
the courage to seek out the criminals, and who have the courage
their guns to arrest or execute the criminals, thereby destroying
the crime networks.
Unfortunately, when the typical person encounters a problem or
becomes afraid of something, such as a crime network or a corrupt
government official, he will not face his problems,
or look critically
at himself or his society. He will not do any
research into the issue,
or have discussions with other people about what to do. He will be
especially frightened to experiment with improvements to his life and
society. Instead, he will behave like a stupid animal; specifically,
he will either pound his chest and try to appear brave and courageous,
like a cat that is hissing, or he will run away
Each of us is already on lots of different lists. When you purchase an
automobile, for example, your name goes on a list of people who own
automobiles, and you are also in a list of people with driver's
licenses. When you purchase a home, your name will be put in a list of
owners of houses. When you get a job, your name is put on a list of
employees. All of us are also required to file tax returns
year, and that puts us on a list that provides the government with lots
of details about where we live, how much money we make, and how we
spend our money.
Lots of businesses maintain lists of their customers, so all of us are
on lots of lists that are maintained by businesses.
example, Google, Facebook, doctors, dentists, and many retail stores
have lists of their customers, and some keep detailed information about
our spending habits, friends, political beliefs, or medical data.
Furthermore, some of those companies, such as Voter Gravity,
sell lists that contain our names and information about us.
The people who whine that the government has a list of
people who own guns should be told that they are emotionally disturbed,
paranoid nitwits. If the government is corrupt, we should investigate
it and replace or arrest
the corrupt officials, not
tremble in fear.
If the Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership were a bit more frightened
they could be classified as schizophrenic, hysterical, or
hallucinating. Those doctors might be capable of providing us with
care, but they are not capable of providing us with
sensible advice, analyses, or leadership on the issue of guns, crime,
or corruption. Rather, they are encouraging paranoia, fear, and
hysteria. We need leaders who can tell people like them to shut
networks keep lists of us, also
It's also important to note that some
businesses are run by criminals,
which means that crime networks have access to some lists that
businesses are maintaining. Furthermore, some crime networks have
members who have jobs in a government agency, and some of those
criminals have access to government databases, which gives the crime
networks access to those particular databases. For example, if a crime
network has a member working for the IRS, that crime network may have
access to your tax
The Estonian government has offered
100,000 citizens the opportunity to have free genetic testing so that
their genetic information can go into a medical research database for
the University of Tartu. Rather than appreciate the attempt by the
University to improve healthcare, one of the thousands of websites that
propaganda, zerohedge, has this
article in which they complain that the Estonian government:
not only know what their citizens are searching on the Internet, but
will also have the knowledge of personal genetic information: ancestry
charts, genetic composition, health history, and anything else that can
be extracted from an Estonian’s double helix. So much knowledge in one
organization is absolutely terrifying."
What is "absolutely terrifying" about
collecting genetic information about people? That type of database
would be incredibly useful in helping us to
understand our health problems, as well as the differences between men
and women, young people and old people, and different races.
I don't see anything terrifying about "the government" collecting our
DNA. We should regard our DNA as a "form of identification".
However, we should be concerned that crime
networks are collecting information about us. The crime
are operating within our government, businesses, legal system, and
schools are gathering information about us, and we need to identify
those criminals and remove them.
If you do not realize how dangerous it is to allow crime networks to
observe us and gather information about us, consider what I have been
going through since 2002, when I began exposing the 9/11 attack as a
false flag operation. I have been contacted repeatedly by people who
wanted to be my friend,
and some of my relatives have been contacted also, and I suppose some
of my neighbors have been contacted. The Jews have been looking for my
weaknesses, and trying to find a way to set me up for blackmail,
bribery, accidental death, suicide, or murder. I mentioned only some of
these events in my documents. Some examples are:
• Somebody convinced one of my cousins that
he would not be able to get a job he was applying for because that job
required he get a security clearance, but when the government saw that
I had an "anti-Semitic" website, he would be denied a security
For all we know, the Israeli government has a list of people
that they are trying to set up for blackmail, death, or bribery. Some
people may be pestered even more than me. For
all we know, Donald Trump has been caught in one of their blackmail
traps, and that is why he is so resistant to exposing the 9/11 attack
as a Jewish false flag operation.
• Trond Halvorsen,
a Norwegian man, tried to convince me to take a trip
with him to Thailand to have sex.
• Jon Gold,
who refers to himself as a 9/11 investigator, sent me
lewd email messages of how he was sexually excited by me. I suppose he
is homosexual, and he was trying to find out if I was, also.
• Several people tried to convince me to take a trip to visit them, but
for what reason? I suspect it was to try to set me up for bribery,
blackmail, suicide, or accidental death.
It is foolish to worry about "the government"
maintaining a list of gun owners, or maintaining a database of our DNA.
We should instead be concerned that crime networks
are gathering information about us.
is collecting a lot of information about us, and I suspect that their
management is working for the same Jewish crime network that did the
9/11 attack, and I would bet that they are using that information to
identify and suppress those of us who are trying to expose or stop
their crime network.
owners are worthless
in stopping crime
tens of millions
of Americans with guns, but none of them are doing what the
Second Amendment advocates, which is to get together
and use their guns
to protect the nation from criminals and corrupt governments. Rather,
most people want guns because they are
frightened. They want a gun for
It is idiotic to let cowardly people have guns.
They will not protect the nation
from crime or corruption. They are not likely to be
interested in being
trained on how to use or store
guns, either. Rather, they are likely to want the gun to be nearby
a child wants his teddy bear nearby. This results in the cowardly
people putting guns in dresser drawers, under their
pillow, or under their bed, which can result in their children
discovering the guns and accidentally injuring or killing themselves
and their neighbors.
The Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, and
everybody else who wants a gun, should stop being afraid to
register their guns, and offer to assist
and military in destroying the crime
should do what the Second Amendment says; specifically, use
their guns for the security of the
nation. If they are too afraid to do that, they should not have a
They should suck on a pacifier instead.
Or those cowardly people
should get a gun that fires blanks. When they see a
criminal, they can fire the gun immediately without hesitation, which
will attract the attention of people in the vicinity, who
should call the police. Even though the blanks are dangerous, blanks
will significantly reduce the number of accidental
deaths and injuries, and there will be fewer lead bullets polluting the
the entertainment businesses
By hiding from criminals
rather than destroying their networks, we have
to take control
of the entertainment businesses and media. Two significant effects of
1) The criminals create movies, artwork,
news articles, school books, and music that promote the philosophies
and people that the criminals want to promote. In other documents I've
described some of their art as "toilet humor", and as indistinguishable
from the "trash" at a city dump. They also frequently promote feminism
and bizarre sexual behavior, and the movies often have what some of us
regard as "gratuitous violence".
2) The entertainers who are
victims of the criminals often create songs, music, and artwork to
express their frustration, hatred, anger, or sadness. They are giving
us weird and bizarre entertainment, rather than pleasant and inspiring
For example, this
music video shows a group of people who have found the courage to kill
the members of a pedophile network that is selling children. Some
screen images are below. Is that your idea of a pleasant
truck has children for sale,
and the customers are inspecting the "merchandise".
man is putting the two
children that he purchased into the trunk of his car.
The lyrics of the song don't make any sense to me, but I suggest you
into watching the video and discussing such issues as:
Why would musicians create a music video with that type of message? Do
they know that these pedophile networks exist, and if so, is the
video an expression of their anger and frustration?
the man who created the video, supposedly committed suicide at the age
of 28. Like a lot of artists, he was suffering from some significant
mental and physical problems, so
he may truly have committed suicide, but some
people wonder if he was murdered by the pedophile network to keep him
quiet, or to intimidate other people into remaining silent.
• If these pedophile networks exist, why are the police departments,
FBI, and other agencies ignoring this problem?
• Why are the journalists and government officials insisting that the
accusations about pizzagate and
pedophilia networks are "fake news" when there are so many people
claiming that these networks really do exist?
However, don't let the possibility that he was murdered intimidate you
into silence. Instead of living in fear of pedophile networks, let his
death inspire you to spread his video and this information to more
people, and to encourage them to help expose and destroy
networks, as the people in that video do.
Some of our distant ancestors created songs simply because
they were enjoying life, wanted to
sing, and wanted to share their joy of life. They created pleasant
songs with pleasant lyrics. During the past few decades, however,
criminals have been controlling who can publish and distribute music,
and this is creating a lot of angry and resentful musicians, and it is
also allowing the crime networks to promote the musicians who are
psychotic, antisocial, sexually disturbed, and violent.
end result of allowing criminals to dominate the entertainment
businesses is that a lot of the music that has been created
century is coming from psychotic, angry, and miserable people. A lot of
songs have hidden meanings, and a lot of them are
promoting bizarre attitudes. For example:
• Katy Perry's song, California
Gurls, seems to have the hidden
meaning of how she became a famous entertainer; specifically, by
agreeing to participate in orgies with managers of the entertainment
• Lady Gaga sang a bizarre song about "pigs", which I
suppose refers to the management of the entertainment businesses. (Here
are the lyrics.)
|Update 18 July 2018:
Somebody sent me a link to this video
of her "swine" performance. The video begins with her giving an
explanation of why she wrote the song, although she doesn't
provide details about who she is referring to when she says "you're just a pig inside a human body".
watched that video, I realized that I had recorded a higher quality
version of her explanation a year ago. Her audience frequently yells as
she talks, so I cut out some of their obnoxious noises, and I
posted that edited MP3 audio file here:
If we can get the criminals out of our
society, then the art, music, television programs, and news
articles would be created by people with a better attitude
and better mental health. That
would provide us with art that is pleasant, entertaining, and
inspiring, rather than weird, confusing, depressing, and disgusting.
• Recently Taylor Swift created "Look What
You Made Me Do", in which she seems to
be rebelling against the management of the entertainment
• After the accusations that Paul McCartney died in 1966, the music
produced by the Beatles changed
so significantly that almost everybody noticed. Their music was
originally cheerful and pleasant, but after 1966 it became sad,
psychotic, and weird.
think future generations are going to look at our era as one of
sadness, and they will rewrite a lot of the songs of
the 20th and 21st century to give them more pleasant lyrics.
on Anthony Weiner's laptop computer?
In previous documents, such as here,
I mentioned that we ought to investigate the "pizzagate" theory;
specifically, investigate the accusation that a pedophile network is
operating within our government, schools, media, and other
organizations, and that some pizza parlors, donut shops, and other
businesses are involved with it, also.
really have a video of Clinton torturing a young girl to
In April 2018, some people, such as David
that a video has been released on the "dark web" of Hillary Clinton and
Huma Abedin torturing and sexually abusing a young girl in order to
cause her body to create large amounts of adrenochrome,
and then they murdered her and drank her blood. They claim that this
video, referred to as Frazzledrip,
was on Anthony Weiner's laptop computer, and that the New York
City police were horrified by it.
The Ambrosia company sells
the blood of children to the people who believe that injections of a
child's blood will help them to live longer, but are there
networks involved with the kidnapping and killing of children in order
provide that blood at a lower cost?
there really a network of people who are kidnapping and torturing
children so that they can drink blood that has a high level of
adrenochrome? Or was this theory created by the pedophiles in order to
make those of us who complain about pizzagate to appear to be idiots?
In March 2018, the founder of NXIVM, Keith Raniere, was arrested
for treating members of his organization as sex slaves.
Allison Mack, an actress, one of several women who were
of NXIVM, chased
after the police for making the arrest, but a month later she
for her role in the abuse. In May 2018, a doctor for NXIVM was
accused of performing a 'fright
study' but the journalists do not seem interested in finding
out why he did it, or for whom.
Also in May 2018, David Zublick accused
some Bronfman family members and the former New York Attorney General,
Eric Schneiderman, of helping NXIVM with their crimes. If the
Attorney General of New York was involved with a crime network, it is
no wonder that our media and government refuse to expose or stop the
hide from reality should not influence society
Does the Frazzledrip
video really exist? If so, it should be used as a way of
who among us should be a voter, policeman, FBI agent, military leader,
and a government official. People who
cannot watch that type of video and provide an
of it should be classified as unfit
for certain types of jobs, such as a policeman and a voter. A
person who runs away
from that type of video, or who becomes
hysterical, should be described as a "talking
monkey" who cannot cope with
the unpleasant aspects of modern human societies.
Those of you who have tried to show other people the evidence that the
World Trade Center towers were destroyed by explosives must have
encountered people who ignored the
information. We cannot eliminate crime networks
when people, especially the police,
military, and voters, run away and hide from criminals.
need to find men who have the emotional ability to look
at and analyze the evidence of a crime. And we need those
men to have the courage to do what the Second Amendment says;
namely, use their guns to protect the nation from
criminals, including criminals who are wealthy and famous,
such as government officials, business executives, Hollywood
celebrities, police chiefs, and members of a royal family.
Furthermore, if the Frazzledrip video truly exists, it should
also be used as
more proof that the feminist attitude is false.
The feminists are
frequently promoting the theory that the world has lots of wars and
crime because men are violent and selfish, but if the Frazzledrip video
exists, then it should be used as
more evidence that women can be just as deceptive, violent, selfish,
abusive, and disgusting as men. Women are not better
than men; rather, they are different, so they have
a tendency to commit
different types of
videos are real and
which are fake?
The Frazzledrip video brings up another
issue. Specifically, as technology improves, it becomes easier for
criminals to fake video and audio recordings. And imagine what will
happen when criminals develop the ability to
create DNA. They will be able to create a person's DNA and leave it at
a crime scene, thereby making it appear as if an innocent person was
responsible for the crime.
During the past few months, many journalists have been
providing reports about the technology to create fake videos,
such as this
report. I suspect that the journalists want to inform the public about
this technology because they want the public to realize that it is now
possible to create fake videos, and therefore, when the real videos are
released, the police and public will not know which are real and which
are fake. Therefore, Hillary Clinton will be able to claim that the
Frazzledrip video is one of the fake videos.
Furthermore, I would not be surprised if some pedophiles
are funding the development of the software that creates fake
videos. If I was in control of our law enforcement agencies, I would
authorize an investigation of the people who are encouraging or
providing financial support for that software, and the people who want
to use it.
we do nothing to stop crime, the worse our situation becomes
As our technology improves, criminals are
provided with more opportunities to commit crimes, cover up their
crimes, fool the police with fake evidence, and set other people up to
be blamed for their crimes. For just
• Criminals can now use drones
kill people; set fire to forests, buildings, and oil refineries; and
spread mice, fleas, or aerosols of LSD or poisons.
• The technology to control
criminals with lots of new opportunities. For example, a crime network
could incapacitate a person with some type of drug, put him in the
driver's seat of a car, and when he gets near a crowd of
remotely control the steering so that he drives into the people,
thereby creating the impression that the person in the driver's seat
did it deliberately.
• As robots
become more advanced, criminals will have even more options for crimes.
does not need to be
When I first mentioned "pizzagate" (here),
pointed out that it is suspicious that lots of journalists quickly
rushed to the defense of Comet Pizza and insisted
that the accusations
were false. This is a very important concept to understand. I discussed
years ago here
when I pointed out that the Jews do not have to
defend the truth about the Holocaust, and the American government does not
have to defend the truth about the Iraqis who were throwing babies out
The truth does not need protection, so if Weiner's
laptop did not have a Frazzledrip video, nobody
needs to protect Clinton from a non-existent video. And if the Comet
Pizza shop is not involved with a pedophile
network, nobody needs to defend them. Only lies
need to be defended and protected.
If you can understand this
concept then you should wonder why some sites, such as
factcheck.org and snopes.com, quickly posted articles (this
to inform us that the Frazzledrip video does
not exist. How could they possibly be so certain
that it does not exist? And why would they bother
to discredit a video that almost nobody had heard of at that time?
Furthermore, it is difficult to prove something does not
The only people who know for certain whether that video exists are the
investigators who had access to Anthony Weiner's laptop, and
who also know how to search a hard disk.
Therefore, all of the people who are insisting that the video does not
exist are liars since they did not inspect the hard
disk. This should make you ask such questions as, "Why
would they so quickly post
the Internet to convince us that the video does not
exist? Why would they be willing to lie about such a significant
Before you answer those questions, do a bit of research into those
two websites and notice that they are lying to us about the
attack, the Holocaust, the Apollo moon landing, and other crimes. This
should lead you to the conclusion that those websites are under the
control of the criminals who are responsible for those crimes. This
should also make you wonder if the reason they are trying to convince
us that the Frazzledrip video does not
exist is because
it does indeed exist.
try to stop abortion,
but not pedophile networks
conservatives love to boast that they want to protect children, so why
are they ignoring the evidence that pedophile networks exist?
Why do they spend so much time whining about
abortion while ignoring the Hampstead children,
at Boystown, and the Comet
reason is because the conservatives follow their leaders, but they
will follow only the leaders who tell them what
they want to
Since they have a strong desire to protect children, they demand their
leaders also have a strong desire to protect children, so they select
leaders who oppose abortion, rather than look for
leaders who provide them with intelligent analyses of abortion
and related issues.
I mentioned earlier, when people look for a submissive leader, they
criminals to get into leadership positions. Since a pedophile can
condemn abortion, the conservatives will consider even a pedophile as
appropriate leader. I suspect that the leaders of conservative
organizations are ignoring the pedophile network because a lot of them are
pedophiles, or involved with some other crime
The conservatives have done a terrible
job of selecting leaders for themselves. For example, their leaders
insist that pizzagate
has been proven to be fake news,
and millions of conservatives mindlessly follow along. They don't
investigate the issue for themselves. They don't ask for evidence
because they don't need or want evidence. They follow without asking why.
They have no interest in thinking for themselves.
The conservatives are making themselves look
like idiots with their constant whining about
abortion while showing no concern
about pedophile networks, or for the quality of life of the unwanted
children. Some of those
children end up as sex slaves, or as homeless creatures that survive
from crime and finding food in our trash cans. The
conservatives are tormenting
children, not protecting them. They are also allowing a pedophile
network to infiltrate our government, businesses, media, and other
organizations with blackmailed pedophiles.
liberals need to be suppressed, also
The liberals don't have anything intelligent
say about the issue of guns, crime, pedophile networks, or corruption,
either. Furthermore, the liberals are more likely than
conservatives to arrange
for obnoxious and violent demonstrations in public streets and parks.
The Constitution gives us the right to get together to discuss
issues, but it does not give us the right to throw rocks at
the police or set trash cans on fire.
If some employees of a business were to stage a violent demonstration
and throw rocks at the executives, the executives would not
passively stand behind plastic shields and allow them to throw rocks.
Rather, they would fire those employees, or have them arrested.
Our government officials should behave more like business executives
and other leaders; specifically, they should allow peaceful discussions
but not violent demonstrations.
Furthermore, the Constitution does not
give us the right to leave trash on public streets, as in the photo below,
which shows trash from a March For Our Lives protest. The police should
that those protesters pick up their litter. If any
protester refused to join in on the cleaning, he should be
considered as unacceptable for our modern society,
should be evicted, or restricted to certain neighborhoods.
Businesses, militaries, and other
their members to have tantrums and leave enormous amounts of trash
scattered around their facilities. Respectable parents don't let their
children scatter trash around the house or yard, either. There is no
that a nation has to tolerate such abuse.
reason we tolerate this abuse is because we have a government of
submissive servants rather than leaders, and because our nation
promotes a "Feel Sorry
for the Underdog" attitude.
Businesses, militaries, and other
lunches", or accept the wretched refuse and huddled masses, and our
nation can follow the same policies. We can stop being a
human garbage dump, and start
becoming a nation of
people cannot set sensible priorities
The March For Our Lives protest in March 2018
was a nationwide event in which more than a million teenagers and
adults protested for more restrictions for guns. Students at more than
3000 schools participated, and millions
of dollars were donated by wealthy liberals to fund the protests.
The journalists might have given you the impression that it was
a protest by high school students, but thousands of adults
arranging, funding, and planning the protests. The teenagers may have
more than pawns
who were being used by the adults.
The people who joined or supported the protests believe that by
increasing the restrictions on guns, they will reduce
the shootings at schools, but there are two important aspects to
this issue that they should consider:
Students face a lot of problems in life,
one of the most
threats to a student is a school shooting.
much more likely to be injured or killed from automobiles, obesity,
drug abuse, lack of exercise, gang fights, and sports events.
2) Most school
shootings seem to be false flag
If we were to eliminate secrecy and keep a detailed database of
everybody's life, we would be able to analyze everybody's injuries,
medical problems, and deaths, and that would help us determine what is
causing people to become injured or die. We would discover that very
few people have been injured or killed from a school shooting, and that
most people are suffering from self-inflicted problems, such as
overeating, using a cell phone while driving, abusing alcohol or other
drugs, and playing sports.
Another significant problem for students is that college educations are
becoming absurdly expensive, and a lot of college
courses have no value.
As a result, many students and/or their families end up with tremendous
debt, and many college graduates end up working as unskilled laborers.
I would also say that a significant problem for many students is
finding friends and a spouse.
Many students are so confused, and have such unrealistic expectations
for life and marriage, that they have a lot of miserable
relationships. If they get married, many of them will suffer from
and divorces. Some have so many failed relationships that they get a
If a student is truly concerned about his health and life, he should be
more concerned about those
problems rather than school shootings. Worrying about a
school shooting is almost as idiotic as worrying about being hit by a
Most of the school shootings are so bizarre
and suspicious, and the reaction of the police and journalists is so
suspicious, that I think they are false flag
operations, and that they are arranged by the same Jewish
crime network that is responsible for the 9/11 attack, the world wars,
and the attack on the USS Liberty.
If I am correct, then it is absurd for the students to believe that
restrictions on guns will stop school shootings because the only way to
false flag operation is to identify and destroy the
crime network that
is running them.
The Jews do not need guns to conduct false flag operations. They
can use vehicles, for example. They can drug a person, put him in a
driver's seat, and then remotely control his vehicle to drive into
some students at school.
Even the dumb students should be able to see that the school
shootings are suspicious. For example, I have links to videos that prove
that David Hogg is a liar,
but the journalists ignore that he's a liar
than demand that he explain himself, and they continue to give him
lots of favorable publicity. The dishonest and deceptive
behavior of David Hogg and the journalists should
be regarded as evidence that the school shooting in Parkland, Florida
was a false flag operation.
The students should also be able to see
the 9/11 attack
false flag operation, and so was the attack on the USS Liberty.
Therefore, instead of complaining that we need more restrictions on
the students should demand that the police departments
and military destroy the crime networks that
running the false flag operations.
The point of this section is to bring to your attention
that the students who protest school shootings are protesting an issue
that is of almost no significance to anybody. It
would make more sense for the students to protest an issue
that is truly relevant to us, such as:
• They could complain that we are being
to by journalists, government officials, and
teachers about the school shootings, the 9/11 attack, the world wars,
moon landing, and other issues.
• They could complain that automobiles are dangerous, and our cities
are ugly, noisy, and overcrowded, and that our government should start
funding the research and development of better cities and better
A government of submissive representatives is idiotic
The Constitution has a few good
qualities, such as preventing the government from interfering with
freedom of speech, but a government of submissive
representatives is so helpless, ineffective,
and easily manipulated that a small group of
pedophiles, Jews, and lunatics have been able to get control of the USA
and exploit us to an incredible extent.
For example, a small group of
criminal Jews have been able to get away with televising the demolition
the World Trade
Center buildings. This
is equivalent to a crime gang broadcasting a video of themselves as
they rob a
bank, and the police,
journalists, and public ignore the obvious fact that the video is
evidence of their crime.
How can we boast that the American Constitution has created the
greatest government in the world when criminals are routinely getting
away with such destructive and disgusting crimes? How can
proud of our school system, law enforcement agencies, FBI, courts, or
media when they are routinely lying to us?
It would make more sense to provide a nation with the type of
leadership that we provide to militaries, businesses, scientific
laboratories, and other organizations. The government officials should
be leaders, not submissive
we should restrict leadership to the men who show an
above-average level of self-control, and an above-average interest in
With that type of government, our leaders would provide us with an
intelligent analysis of the Second Amendment instead of an idiotic
emotional reaction. Furthermore, instead of pandering to the people,
would have the emotional ability to tell the people who misinterpret
the Second Amendment:
Constitution does not give citizens the right to weapons. It
gives that right only to trained teams of security personnel. Those of
are unable to understand this are detrimental to a discussion of the
issue, so keep your mouth shut."
If the USA had that type of government, then our leaders would discuss
the issue of whether citizens should have guns, and if so, for
what purposes, and what rules they should follow. From that discussion,
they would develop a policy for guns that is based on intelligent
reasoning rather than emotional cravings. Furthermore, after
implementing the policy, they would regularly give it a critical
review to ensure that it is truly helpful, and they would experiment
with changes to the policy in order to figure out if there
are ways to improve upon it.
conservatives and liberals distort
article, the author justifies allowing citizens to own guns on the
grounds that an "exhaustive
study" has proven that "Murder Rates Rise Every Place that Bans Guns".
The first chart he shows to prove his remark is the chart below of
firearm offenses, and intimate violence" in England and Wales from 1990
to 2011. It shows that after a handgun ban was authorized in 1997,
there was a spike in the number of homicides.
However, if we look at the British
we can see that the chart above is just a small section of
chart that starts in 1967, and that larger chart brings us to a
Homicide Index, Home
recorded crime data are not
1987 includes 15 victims of
2000/01 includes 58 Chinese
suffocated in a lorry en route into the UK.
2002/03 includes 172 victims
of Dr Harold
2003/04 includes 20 cockle
pickers who drowned
in Morecambe Bay.
2005/06 includes 52 victims
of the 7 July
2010/11 includes 12 victims
of Derrick Bird.
chart above shows that homicides have been increasing since 1967,
around 2003, and then dropping down again. That
chart does not
"exhaustively prove" that banning guns
in 1997 has increased the murder
rate in Britain.
Even more important, look at notes #4
through #7. Those
notes show that one of the reasons the chart reached such a high peak
between 2000 and 2006 is because those years included a lot of people
in a bus, who were killed with morphine by a doctor,
in the ocean, and who were victims of the Israeli false flag operation
Also, the 172 victims of
that were counted as homicides in 2002 and 2003 were actually killed
many years earlier, but those are the years the government
decided to add those murders to its database.
The conservatives deliberately sliced the chart in
such a manner that it looked as if the homicide rate increased after
guns were banned. The
conservatives show no embarrassment or shame for twisting
statistics, and the liberals do not, either. Both groups do
this on a regular basis.
has a tendency to twist statistics and "facts". We have no inhibitions
information because each of us regards ourself as an all-knowing God,
and we have the attitude that, when we deceive somebody, we are simply
people to understand "the truth". We distort information
for their benefit, not ours. We
facts because most of the people who disagree with us are too
stupid and/or ignorant to understand the issue, so we have to simplify
the information for them.
“I am not
I am simply
presenting them in a manner that you idiots
attitude of distorting the facts to help the ignorant and stupid people
is similar to the attitude of a man who beats his wife or
children in order to help them behave better, and our
attitude that punishing criminals with jail or beatings will help them
become better people.
We assume that we are wonderful people
when we punish people, and when
we distort statistics and facts, but I
would say that the people who distort information are making themselves
appear untrustworthy, and they stimulate our emotions of disgust or
anger, rather than stimulate us into thinking about the issue and
compromising on policies.
We are arrogant
creatures who want to convince other people that we are correct, and
that they are wrong. We need to restrict leadership positions to people
who are aware that they have these animal characteristics, and who also
have enough self-control to prevent their crude cravings from
influencing their behavior.
conservatives nor liberals have anything intelligent to say
The U.S. Constitution is based on the
philosophy that the ordinary people are capable of giving intelligent
to their submissive government representatives but, in reality, the
majority of people have nothing intelligent to say
about any issue.
Both the conservatives and the liberals boast that they have the
correct answers to life, and they blame the other group for being the
source of our nation's problems, but both groups are promoting idiotic
example, at the NRA meeting in May 2018, Mike Pence claimed that our
communities will become safer with "firearms in the hands of
law-abiding citizens", but no matter which crime statistics we look at,
they all show that his theory is 100%
false. For example, according to this
35.7% of the people in Texas own guns, but Texas has lots of murders,
burglaries, rapes, kidnappings, and other crime. Texas also has lots of
corrupt and incompetent government officials. At the other extreme,
not many Japanese citizens own guns, but Japan has much less
crime than Texas.
charts that show where murders are occurring show
murders are much more common in certain neighborhoods, and that there
is no correlation
between the number of people who own guns in a
neighborhood, and the number of murders in that neighborhood. Rather,
what the charts show, and which the majority of people are struggling
to ignore and deny, is that the neighborhoods that have people
"low-quality" genetics have more crime.
within Houston, Detroit, and Los Angeles have high levels
of crimes, whereas other neighborhoods have very low
is one site with a map to show this.
Human behavior is influenced by the
environment, but our genetic
are the primary factor in determining our behavior and opinions.
have certain genetic characteristics are more likely to commit
the people who have higher-quality characteristics. This is easily
proven simply by pointing out that the people who commit crimes are in
virtually the same environment as people who are honest.
divorce, obesity, drug abuse, envy, hatred, and other types of bad
behavior are more common and more extreme in the people, families,
sports groups, and nations that have lower quality
Some obese people blame their obesity on being molested as a child, or
because their spouse or child died unexpectedly, but a lot of people
have suffered such traumatic incidents without becoming obese,
alcoholic, or psychotic. The liberals are encouraging us to blame the
environment for our idiotic behavior, but it is our genetics that is
the primary factor in determining how we behave.
we were to remove secrecy and analyze the organizations that have the
most problems with employee theft, employee fighting, drug abuse, and
obesity, we would discover that organizations are not
identical in regards to these problems. We would find that
undesirable behavior is more common among certain organizations.
don't know which organizations have the worst behavior, but I would not
be surprised if the people who work in gambling casinos, Hollywood,
government, and strip clubs have more problems
with drugs, murders, envy, hatred, and pedophilia than the people who
work at IBM, Sony, and General Electric.
Furthermore, and if we look at the departments
within an organization, we would find that the departments are not
either. For example, we might discover that within IBM, the people
involved with sales or advertising have more bad behavior than the
engineers and technicians.
Our behavior is the result of the genetic qualities
of our brains and body. Our behavior is influenced by the environment,
but our genetics give us our "personality". Our genetics determine how
strong each of our emotional cravings are, and what stimulates each of
our emotions, and for how long a stimulation persists. Our
genetics also determines how much self-control we have, and how much
the environment can influence us.
genetics also determines whether our liver, thyroid gland,
pancreas, and other organs are functioning correctly, and if
not, we may suffer from inappropriate blood chemistry, which
turn can cause our mind to malfunction, or cause us to suffer from
irrational changes of
Crime is the result of the human mind choosing to commit crimes. The
neighborhoods that have people with better genetics
will have better behavior,
and the neighborhoods where the people have lower quality genetics
are going to have more crime, obesity, divorce, drugs, pouting, envy,
hatred, arrogance, revenge, and tantrums.
will not stop crime
a leader is sensible only if
you can select a leader who provides leadership.
History shows us that crime occurs regardless
of whether people in the area have guns, but
millions of conservatives insist
that guns will stop crime.
The conservatives don't care what the evidence
They want to follow their leaders, not think for themselves, research
issues, or look critically at their opinions. And they want leaders who
tell them what they want to hear, rather than leaders who
Furthermore, the conservatives are terrified
at the thought of experimenting with a new path, so they make
excuses to avoid experimenting with different crime policies.
on guns will not stop crime, either
The liberals promote the
theory that creating more
guns and bullets will reduce crime and violence, but
history has proven that restrictions on guns
will not stop crime, either.
For example, the UK has lots of restrictions on guns and bullets,
but rather than eliminate crime and violence, the people who want to
commit crimes simply use some other weapon, such as a
or metal rod. Being stabbed with a knife or having acid thrown
in your face is not necessarily better than being shot with a
restrictions on weapons do
not stop crime or violence, millions of liberals promote this
idiotic philosophy decade after decade. As with the conservatives, the
liberals don't care what the evidence shows.
will not stop crime
liberals and conservatives promote the theory that we can
rehabilitate criminals with punishments. A small number of criminals
annoyed by jail that they
used their unpleasant memories to stimulate themselves into exerting
enough self-control to avoid committing another crime, and those
particular criminals create the impression that jail has rehabilitated
However, the people who appear to become
as a result of being
put in jail are those who are "on the borderline" between being a
criminal and an honest person. In other words, their genetic qualities
are not so bad that they are hopeless.
If you have trouble understanding that concept, consider how it applies
to left-handed people. Centuries ago some of the
left-handed people were forced to be right-handed, and some of
those people actually
made the switch, thereby creating the impression that it is indeed
possible to change a person through punishments and rewards.
However, the left-handed people who "became" right-handed were those
were on the border between left and right-handed. They could use both
of their hands fairly well, so it was possible for them to train
themselves to use their right hand. They were not the
people who were extremely left-handed.
Furthermore, the left-handed people who became
right-handed were not truly "cured"; rather, they simply forced
themselves to use their right hand more often. They continued to have
both the desire and ability to use their left hand.
In May 2018, a 22-year-old Pakistani man told his family that he wanted
to get married to a woman that he was having a relationship with. His
father and four brothers did not approve, and they tied him to a bed,
and his father gouged
out both of his eyeballs. The man asked his father
to kill him, but his father replied
that he wanted
him to be an example for the other boys in the
His father and four brothers believe that cruel punishments
will help other people behave properly.
They did not blind him in order to torment
him. Rather, his family members were wonderful
people who were trying to help him and the other
boys in the neighborhood realize that they should follow the correct
path in life rather than wander along their own path.
What is the difference between:
• A father who gouges out his son's
order to help his son and other boys in the neighborhood behave
Or how about the difference between:
• A nation that promotes the theory that a "death penalty" will help
people realize that they should not commit certain types of crimes.
• A nation that puts thieves in jail for
several years in order to help them and other people behave properly.
Punishments are useful for influencing both animal and human
behavior, but only when the punishments are trivial.
For example, dogs can be trained to poop outside of the house by
yelling at them. However, cruel punishments, such
as gouging out the dog's eyes, would not be useful.
• A nation that cuts the hand off of a thief in order to help him and
other people behave properly.
Trivial punishments are also very effective with humans, especially
young children. Humans and other social creatures want to fit into
society, so we want approval from other people. We want to see smiling
faces, not frowning faces. We want to hear pleasant tones of voice, not
angry, frustrated, disappointed, or sarcastic tones of voice.
Therefore, it is easy to manipulate people and animals with facial
expressions and tones of voice.
seems to realize that rewards and punishments can be useful for
influencing human behavior, but a lot of people have trouble with the
concept that everything in life has to be kept within certain limits.
History has proven over and over that cruel
punishments are usually detrimental
because they often
stimulate anger, disgust, hatred, resentment, or rebellion in
of the population, thereby increasing the chances that there will be
even more violence or crime in the future.
The theory that we can reduce crime with jail,
beatings, gouging out of eyeballs, cutting off
of hands, and other cruel methods has proven to be false,
but millions of people around the world, and all of the world's
governments and police departments, continue to promote these
worthless, failed policies.
also shows that the death penalty, which millions of Americans believe
in, is worthless in preventing crimes. The effect of killing a criminal
is similar to the effect of killing a
rat or mosquito. Specifically, it removes that particular
rat, or mosquito from our lives, but it doesn't stop any of the others
from causing us trouble.
Killing a criminal is similar to my suggestion of exiling
them; specifically, it gets them out of our lives, but it doesn't
stop other people from committing crimes. I don't recommend
exiling criminals as a way of preventing crime.
Rather, exiling criminals is analogous to removing weeds from a garden.
is occurring even in the states that allow us to strap guns to
A variation of the theory that punishments
prevent crime is the "open
carry" philosophy. (In which people display
their guns in public, as in the photo.)
This theory claims that if lots of people would openly carry a gun in
public, criminals would be frightened
into behaving properly. This is an attempt to use fear
than punishments to prevent crimes.
However, history shows this policy is false, also.
For example, policemen openly display weapons, and so do militaries,
but that has not stopped crime, corruption, or war.
Criminals prefer to commit crimes secretly
in order to reduce the chances that somebody can interfere with their
plans. Therefore, the policemen and citizens with guns usually do not
realize a crime has occurred until hours or days later.
if a criminal were to rob a store when one of the customers
is carrying a gun, as in the photo, the criminal may first disarm or kill
the customer, and then rob the store.
A criminal may also take a person's gun away and shoot him with it,
which happened in May 2018 to these
police officers in Belgium.
As is typical of conservatives, the author of that article implies that
the solution to that problem is to let the Belgian citizens carry
guns. He has no interest in
experimenting with new policies for crime, mental illness, or
American citizens can carry guns, but that doesn't stop criminals from
killing Americans, or American policemen. However, the author of that
article doesn't care about reality. He wants to believe his fantasy
that guns will stop crime.
When a citizen carries a gun in public, he is essentially walking
around with a neon sign that announces to the world: "I am a threat to criminals. If you want to
commit a crime, you must take my gun, or disarm or kill me."
The "open carry" theory appeals to us because
it satisfies one of
Specifically, when animals are frightened, they want to appear
powerful, so they show their
teeth, growl, arch their back, or do something else to make themselves
strong, powerful, and dangerous. They try to create fear
in their opponent.
It might also help you to
understand how useless punishments are if you consider how they would
fail to solve
alcoholism, obesity, or shyness. If we were to take a thousand obese
people at random, and threaten to beat them with a wet bamboo
pole, or gouge out their eyeballs, if they don't lose 50 pounds over
the next three months, we would discover that some of them push
themselves into losing weight.
If we then beat those who did not lose weight, or
if we gouged out their
eyeballs, we would discover that the next time we take a thousand
obese people at random and demand that they lose weight or receive the
same punishment, a slightly higher percentage will
push themselves into losing weight.
The fact that some of the obese people lose weight from that punishment
could lead us to the conclusion that we can help some of the
obese people lose weight by "making an example" of some of them by
beating them or gouging out their eyeballs. However, that policy is
effective only for some of the obese people, and,
even worse, it would
create a miserable environment for everybody.
Punishing obese people
cannot convert them into normal people.
people who are
are genetically inferior in some manner compared to those of us who are
not obese, and
punishments cannot improve their low-quality
genes. Although some
people will lose weight when punished, the ideal way to
obesity is to restrict reproduction to the people
who don't have the problem so that every generation has less trouble
stop behaving like animals
The reason we are attracted to the concept
that we can
reduce crime by punishing criminals is because we evolved from animals.
We inherited their emotional craving to bite, scratch, and kick an
animal that misbehaves.
The reason we are attracted to the
concept of "open carry" is because we inherited the craving of animals
to intimidate and frighten other creatures.
times, it made sense for the humans to do whatever their emotions
wanted, but today it is absurd. We must restrict influential positions
to the minority of people who can see the animal qualities of humans,
and who have enough self-control to prevent their crude emotional
cravings from influencing their decisions.
We enjoy hurting people who have irritated us, but a society
that uses cruel punishments in an
attempt to cure or reduce bad behavior is creating an unpleasant social
environment for everybody. Furthermore, some
punishments are a serious burden
on society. For example, American jails are very expensive
Nothing is going to
improve as long as we continue to allow the majority of people to
dominate our government systems, economy, schools, crime policies, and
activities. The majority of people will give us emotionally titillating
policies, but they will be worthless or detrimental. We need to create intelligent
policies. The majority of people
need to be told to
criminals gave us plenty of warnings
It is important to note that many of the
who committed a
crime gave us plenty of warnings that there was
something wrong with
their mind and/or attitude. For example, many of them were badly
behaved as children, or they showed antisocial behavior, or they became
adults who had trouble forming
friendships, holding a job, following rules, or enjoying life. Some of
them committed hundreds of "small" crimes.
When farmers notice that some of their animals are behaving strangely,
they investigate rather than make excuses to ignore it.
Unfortunately, we have a
strong tendency to feel sorry for the misfit humans rather than regard
as potential dangers. We are especially likely to feel sorry for children
with strange behavior, and men have a strong tendency to
ignore the strange behavior of pretty
Who is to blame when a person commits a murder after
repeatedly showing us signs that he is miserable, angry,
lonely, or violent? Becoming angry at the criminal does not
A more sensible reaction to crime is to eliminate secrecy and keep
a database of everybody's life. We should be observing
signs of unusual behavior. Farmers perform quality control on their
plants and animals, and we need to do the same with humans. This
requires providing our societies with leaders who can accept the
evidence that humans are a collage of genetic characteristics, and that
we are all defective and imperfect.
U.S. Constitution doesn't give citizens the
right to free medical or dental care, so if a parent wants to ensure
his child is in good physical and mental health, the parents
have to pay a
dentist and a doctor to analyze the child.
In the society I
suggest, the government regards children as the next generation of
people, rather than as the personal toys of parents, and so the
government would be responsible for taking care of the children. The
government would provide parents with whatever products and services
they need for their children, such as food, clothing,
schools, and activities, as well as medical and dental
The Quality Control department of the
government would routinely put children through
tests, and pass judgment on their physical and mental health. The
children who displayed unusual or
undesirable behavior would be investigated to see if there is something
in their environment that needs to be changed, or whether their strange
behavior is due to their genetic characteristics, in which case the
government would have to pass judgment on whether the child should be restricted
to certain schools or neighborhoods, or evicted
before he becomes troublesome.
Years ago I pointed out here
that my ability to run became increasingly worse when I became a
teenager. By maintaining a database of everybody's life, and by having
computers constantly scanning the database to identify people who seem
different, the Quality Control Department would be able to identify
children like me for further investigation. The doctors would notice
that some of us have problems that can be corrected to a certain extent
with medical technology or changes in diet.
The doctors would
also realize that some children have bad behavior for reasons that
nobody can understand or correct. Society would have to pass judgment
on whether those children should be restricted to their own
neighborhoods, or evicted from the city.
Unfortunately, dealing with badly behaved children will be
emotionally traumatic for the leaders of society, the law enforcement
agencies, and the parents. However, ignoring the issue causes emotional
trauma also because it allows the badly behaved children to irritate us
and commit crimes, and they often grow up to be adults who are even
more destructive and irritating. We are going to suffer either way, so
we should do what makes the most sense, which is dealing with the
misfits while they are young.
yourself into becoming one of the pioneers who are
to experiment with a new policy for crime?