The AI software should analyze us

The official explanation for Charlie Kirk's murder was so unbelievable to thousands of people that many of them began posting messages and videos on the Internet to accuse the government and the Turning Point USA officials of lying about the murder.

There were people who were suspicious of almost everybody who had a connection to Charlie Kirk, or who were supporting the official story of his murder, but other people, such as Matt Walsh, were advocating "unity", and that we should not betray our friends by becoming suspicious of one another or attacking one another.

Brett Cooper, a woman who got to know Matt Walsh when she was working for The Daily Wire, did not understand that the call for unity is a trick that criminals use dampen suspicion and investigations. As a result of her ignorance, she responded by posting a video in which she praised Walsh for advocating unity, and she boasted that she refused to criticize the people that she considered to be her friends, such as Walsh and Ben Shapiro (in the photo below with Brett Cooper). She posted this short video (which YouTube claims has had more than 3.2 million views as of 10 December 2025) to summarize her full video.

Her response is a good example of why we need to analyze everybody, and set standards for both the people in influential positions and the information that they provide the public. The transcript of her short video is:

I will not stop being friends with Candace Owens, who has become like a big sister to me, because the Internet demands it. I will not attack Matt [Matt Walsh] just because I no longer work with him, or because the Internet has decided to pile onto him for the 27th millionth time.

I also will not pile onto attacks on Ben Shapiro's character, because he was nothing but kind and supportive of me during my time at Daily Wire. And that is a fact. I just won't do it.

And if you have a problem with any of that, that's fine. That is your prerogative. It simply means that we have different values, and guess what, it is a free country. That is the beauty of America.

Brett Cooper is proud of herself for refusing to be critical of the people who are nice to her, but that attitude is dangerous today. It is the attitude of the children in the image to the right.

Candace Owens has criticized Ben Shapiro many times, including accusing him of lying and being "completely deranged", but Cooper refuses to be critical of Shapiro because he was "kind and supportive" of her.

Candace Owens was not fooled by the calls for unity. She is one of the few well-known people who has the sense, courage, and determination to investigate Charlie Kirk's murder, and to ignore the insults that she is anti-Semitic. She has shown more courage and independence than most men.

Cooper considers Owens to a "like a big sister", but Cooper has such a strong attraction to people who are nice to her that she doesn't want to follow the example set by her "big sister".

We should learn from previous generations

When I was exposing the evidence that the World Trade Center towers were demolished with explosives, a lot of other people promoting slightly different theories, such as the buildings were demolished with miniature hydrogen bombs. I was also blaming Israel for the attack, but they were blaming a variety of other people, such as the Vatican, the Rothschilds, the CIA, the Rockefellers, and George Bush.

I and other people would occasionally accuse those alternative theories as coming from Jews who were doing damage control, and they would respond that we should not fight with each other. We should unite and work together against our "common enemy". They wanted me and the others to unite under their leadership, not under my leadership. They didn't want people like me to even be involved with the leadership.

It was obvious to me that their call for unity was just a trick to get control of us so that they could promote their lie that our "common enemy" was George Bush, the Vatican, and the Rockefellers rather than Israeli officials and other Jews who are scattered around the world.

Unfortunately, Brett Cooper and other people who are posting comments in videos about Charlie Kirk are unaware of this trick, or they don't have enough intelligence to understand it. A lot of the young adults don't seem to have learned anything from the 9/11 attack. Their ignorance and/or stupidity is allowing the Jews to use the same tricks that they were using 25 years ago.

Note:
It is important to realize that a lot of Jews complain when we use the expression "the Jews", such as:
• "The Jews demolished the World Trade Center towers with explosives. "
• "The Jews are lying about the Holocaust."

Those Jews complain that we should refer to the people responsible for those crimes as "Zionists" because not every "Jew" is involved with those crimes.

When I first got involved with exposing the 9/11 attack, not many people knew about Zionism, and so most people were blaming "the Jews" for the 9/11 attack, the world wars, and other problems. Many Jews complained about that expression, and as more people learned about Zionism, I and other people were under pressure to refer to the people responsible as "Zionists".

Some Jews, such as the World Jewish Congress, (image to the right), eventually responded by claiming that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.

There were also some Jews complaining that we shouldn't refer to anybody as a "Jew". We were told to refer to him as "Jewish", or "a Jewish person". That is as stupid as a Catholic complaining that we should refer to him as Catholicish rather than a Catholic, or a German complaining that we should refer to him as Germanish rather than a German, or an American complaining that we should refer to him as Americanish rather than an American.

No matter which expression we use, "the Jews" whine about it. If we switch to referring to them as Kharars, they would undoubtedly complain about that, also.

Many Jews blame "the Feds", "the bankers", and "the military" for the crimes, so employees of those organizations could complain that those expressions are "anti-Feds", "anti-banks", or "anti-military", but the Jews don't care about their hypocrisy.

And the Jews don't have any hesitation to make idiotic accusations about us, such as calling us Nazis, anti-Semites, racists, Holocaust deniers, domestic terrorists, neo-Nazis, and promoters of hate speech. They also don't have any hesitation to accuse us of having white privilege, or being white supremacists.

To complicate the issue of which expression to use, we don't have any sensible definition for "Jew", "Zionist", "hate speech", or "anti-Semitism". The Jews cannot even agree on whether a Jew is a person of a particular religion, or a person of a particular race.

Is Ivanka Trump a Jew? A lot of Jews claim that the only Jews are those whose mother is Jewish, but is Ivanka Trump's mother a Jew? If not, then Ivanka and lots of other people who are calling themselves Jews are not Jewish.

There are a lot of Christians calling themselves "Zionists", but are they really Zionists? Or are they Christians who support Israel? What is a Zionist?

If we blame "Zionists" for the world wars, the 9/11 attack, and other crimes, the Christian Zionists who had no involvement with those crimes could complain that it is wrong to blame "Zionists", and we need to specify the type of Zionist involved with the crime.

Should we try to classify the Zionists into different types of Zionists? Or should we define "Zionist" as a person who supports Israel with crimes? If so, then all of the Zionists who support Israel, but refuse to do so with crimes, would not be Zionists.

However, as we learn more about the history of Zionism, the Zionists who are committing crimes for Israel could complain that they're not really criminals. Rather, they are victims of the ignorance and mistakes of their Khazar ancestors.

Arthur Koestler claims that the Khazars became Jews around 800 A.D., but the people in that era were so ignorant about history that, after some unknown period of time, some of the Khazars began assuming that they were the original Jews of Palestine. That mistaken assumption began spreading among the Khazars, who we now refer to as Ashkenazi Jews, and some of them fantasized about moving back to their homeland in Palestine.

Some of those Ashkenazi Jews supported murders, blackmail, wars, and other crimes in order to regain their homeland, but not because they were Zionists. There was no Zionist movement at that time. Rather, they were supporting those crimes because they had been fooled by the ignorance of their ancestors into believing that the Muslims had taken their land. Therefore, those Jews could complain that they are not truly criminals for committing crimes to support Israel. Rather, they are victims of the mistaken assumptions of their ancestors.

There were a lot of people involved with the planning, execution, and cover up of the 9/11 attack, and lots of people involved with retaliating against the Muslim terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq, but mostt of those people could complain that they were victims of propaganda. Likewise, a lot of Americans were involved with slaughtering Germans and Japanese during World War II, but they could complain that they were victims of propaganda.

Who was responsible for World War II? Was it Hitler, the Nazis, or Zionists? Who was responsible for dropping the atomic bomb on Japan?

How do we determine who classifies as a "criminal", and who classifies as a "victim"?

It is idiotic for us to get into arguments over the words we use. As I have pointed out in many documents, our languages are a haphazard collection of animal noises, and there is no authority for our language, so definitions, spellings, and pronunciations change through time, and different people have slightly different definitions for some words.

We should not be intimidated by the Jews who whine about our expression "the Jews" when they can't agree with one another on who among us is a "Jew" or a "Zionist".

The Jews are whining about the expression "the Jews" and "the Zionists" because they want to shift blame away from themselves, not because the expression is cruel or anti-Semitic. They are trying to fool us into blaming their crimes on some elusive, mysterious, nonexistent organization, such as "the Deep State", "the Feds", or "the Elite".

Don't let "the Jews" intimidate you with their accusations or whining. And don't let them fool you into believing that the crimes are being committed by some mysterious group of people that don't have names or addresses.

We use the expression "the Jews" simply because we don't have any better expression. When a Jew complains about it, tell him to provide us with a better expression, and point out to him that the expression "the Zionists" is no better because "the Jews" do not have a sensible definition for "Zionist".

We provide businesses and people with so much secrecy, and we tolerate so much deception, that we don't know who is in control of our media, but we can see that a lot of the people, such as Larry Ellison, Wolf Blitzer, and Barry Weiss, are described as "Jews". Therefore, why shouldn't we be allowed to say "the Jews" control the media?

If "the Jews" don't like us calling them "the Jews", then they have a good solution. Namely, support the elimination of secrecy, and support investigations of the world wars, the Holocaust, the 9/11 attack, Anne Frank's diary, the attack on the USS Liberty, the murder of Charlie Kirk, the death of Michael Jackson, and other historical events so that we can determine who was responsible, and whether we should refer to those people as "Jews" or as something else. They should also support DNA analyses so that we can determine whether a Jew is a race or a religion.

During the past few decades, the Internet has exposed a lot of human trafficking, blackmail operations, and other crimes occurring in Israel, and among Jews in other nations. None of us know which Jews are involved with crimes, and which of those criminal Jews should be classified as Zionists. We must be suspicious of all Jews, rather than foolishly assume that the Jews who claim to be honest really are honest. Likewise, we would be foolish to trust a Jew who claims to be opposed to Zionism.

A Jew who is truly honest and respectable would be appalled to discover that he has been fooled into supporting wars, murders, and kidnappings. A respectable Jew would want to know the truth about the Nazis, the Holocaust, the attack on the USS Liberty, and all other historical events. He would want to eliminate crime networks regardless of their religion. He would want to live in a world that is peaceful, and in which he could trust other people.

A respectable Italian does not defend Italian crime networks, and a respectable German doesn't defend German crime networks.

If there is such a thing as a respectable Jew, then he would support an investigation of historical events and crimes. He would oppose laws against Holocaust denial, and he would not complain about people who use the expression "the Jews" because he would be just as confused as the rest of us about what a Jew is, and which Jews can be trusted. He would understand why we refer to him and others Jews as "the Jews".

If a Jew is respectable, he would want an investigation of human history so that he would be able to get a better understanding of what a Jew is, and he would be grateful to be free of the propaganda from Jews, Muslims, vegans, businesses, feminists, and every other group of people.

A respectable Jew would want to know the truth about the Nazis, Anne Frank's diary, and the Holocaust, but where are Jews who are demanding an investigation of historical events, or demanding an investigation of Epstein or Anthony Weiner? Where are the Jews demanding that the Holocaust denial laws be eliminated? Where are the Jews who are demanding DNA analyses of everybody so that we can settle the issue of whether a Jew is a race or a religion?

The lack of respectable Jews is creating the impression that every Jew really is involved with protecting their lies and crimes.

There are some people on the Internet who claim to be Jews, and who claim to be "truth seekers" or "anti-Zionists", but they are liars.

We are not living in small groups of relatives, as our ancestors were doing in 20,000 BC. We must be suspicious of everybody, and that includes that mysterious group of people who describe themselves as "Jews".

Incidentally, if we had a database that had details of everybody's life, we could use the software analyze everybody's expressions. We might discover that the people who complain the most about the expression "the Jews" are frequently using similar expressions, such as blaming our problems on "the bankers", "the Vatican", "the military", "the corporations", "the deep state", or "big Pharma". How are those expressions any more sensible than "the Jews"?

Candace Owens has enough courage and independence to ignore the people who tell her to "unite" with the others, but Owens doesn't seem to understand this trick, either. For example, when Tim Pool posted a very angry video in which he accused Owens of causing "division" in the GOP, she responded by laughing at him (she also posted this longer video of his insults). She assumes that he is just a bad tempered jerk.

As I pointed out in the biography of Jesus Christ, when something contradicts reality, it is not likely to be "real". For example, Tim Pool's reaction was so unusually angry and hysterical that we should not consider it to be a "normal" human reaction. Furthermore, he has made idiotic accusations against other people, also, such as Kim Iverson. It is likely that he is a blackmailed or bribed puppet who is being told by his frightened, Jewish handlers to attack certain people.

For another example, Natalie Jean Beisner posted a video clip of Owens, and her description of the video started with:

Candace just called Erika a dumb pageant queen who’s so rich and elitist that she thinks people don’t have the right to think.
How low will this woman stoop?

Almost every person who posted a comment to Beisner's insult supported her hatred of Owens, but anybody who watches the video will realize that Owens did not call Erika a dumb pageant queen.

Tim Pool, Natalie Beisner, and Ben Shapiro are just three of many people who are making accusations about Owens that are obvious lies, and making accusations that are abnormally hateful. We should not ignore those people. They should be investigated. Their behavior is so abnormal that we should consider it to be the result of their fear that Owens is doing serious damage to their crime network. Likewise, all of the people who post comments to support those obvious lies should be investigated.

Owens also doesn't seem to realize that Tucker Carlson has been lying about the 9/11 attack, and other crimes, for many years, and she doesn't seem to suspect that Nick Fuentes is a damage control agent for Israel. It seems that Owens assumes that Fuentes is just another bad tempered jerk.

I don't know much about Fuentes, but as of December 2025, I suspect that the Jews are using him as a replacement for David Duke, David Irving, and other phony Nazis, and that he is willing to be their puppet because he is a blackmailed pedophile or homosexual.

That would also explain why Piers Morgan interviewed Fuentes for two hours, and Tucker Carlson interviewed him for nearly two and half hours, and lots of other people are also willing to give him publicity. It also explains why he never does a good job of exposing the lies about the Holocaust, the diary of Anne Frank, the 9/11 attack, or the creation of Israel.

We need to overhaul our culture

Our lack of standards for people in influential positions, and our lack of standards for the information that people provide to the public, is allowing the government, schools, news agencies, and other organizations to continue promoting lies about the 9/11 attack, the world wars, the Holocaust, the Apollo moon landing, and many other historical events. Owens recently discovered that the Apollo moon moon landings were fake, but she and other younger people are still ignorant about a lot of important information that was uncovered by previous generations.

Women are too nice and trusting to save us

Although Owens is doing an impressive job of standing up to the Jews and exposing their lies, we cannot depend upon women to save us from crime networks and corruption. But where are the men to lead the fight?

Dan Bilzerian recently posted a video that shows that he has a lot of courage, although it was deleted by YouTube within a couple days, but is he going to help Owens in some manner? Will he post his video on a site that has less censorship? Will Owens give him some publicity? Is has Owens been fooled into ignoring him? Or is he just another fraud who is doing damage control for Israel?

We should not depend upon women to eliminate international crime networks because men and women evolved for different roles in life. Women were designed to be mothers, so they will risk their lives to defend their children, but they expect men to protect everybody from predators and neighboring tribes. Although a small percentage of the women are very masculine, we cannot expect majority of women to be interested in becoming, or be useful as, military personnel, police officers, detectives, or other types of security personnel.

The typical woman is very trusting, wants to be nice to everybody, and expects men to provide her with gifts, protection, and praise. Most women do not want to fight with Israel, crime networks, businesses, charities, or other groups of people, and they don't want to be leaders of society. Many women even become hysterical when they find a rat in their house.

Brett Cooper has chosen to trust Ben Shapiro rather than to follow the example set by Candace Owens of being critical of him. Women have an emotional preference to follow male leaders, not women. This could be the reason why Candace Owens has not yet shown any interest in investigating her husband, or her husband's family, or the Zionist organization that her husband's father works for (the Council of Christians and Jews).

Women expect men to provide them with gifts, protection, and praise. They want and expect men to treat them like a queen. Candace Owens, Brett Cooper, and other women, should follow the example by this unusual woman, who is wondering why her father, who is a Republican state Senator of New Mexico, took a trip to Israel to meet Netanyahu.

Men and women inherited these characteristics from animals. For example, the make bee eater in the photo to the right is offering a dragonfly to a female in an attempt to impress her.

Some male spiders have been discovered to give worthless gifts, but those males may do that simply because they are too stupid to realize that their gift is useless.

The difference in personalities between men and women can also be seen by the way we react when we encounter other people. Women are much more likely to smile at the person, which is a display of submission and friendliness.

Women also smile at themselves when they see themselves in mirrors, and when they pass by a mirror, they are more likely than a man to look at themselves, apparently to ensure themselves that they look nice. Women are less interested than men in competing for status and leadership, and more interested in having people like them.

Our distant ancestors lived in tiny groups of close relatives, so it was sensible for a prehistoric woman to trust the men, and to assume that a man who gave her lots of gifts was going to be a dependable husband who would provide her and her children with plenty of food, furs, and protection.

Although some prehistoric men would have been trustworthy, none of the prehistoric women had to deal with the horrible men that modern women must deal with, such as the men who are secretly working for Israel to murder, blackmail, and cheat us; the men who lie about their previous marriages or are married to other women in different cities; and the men who lie about their debt, gambling, criminal behavior, mental disorders, or drug or alcohol use.

Likewise, the prehistoric children could trust the adults. They didn't have to worry that some adults would try to exploit them for money or sex.

Today we live in gigantic societies, and we prevent nature from eliminating the mentally and physically defective people. We are now living among people we cannot trust. We also have a free enterprise system which puts businesses into competition to exploit us.

To make the situation even worse, our governments, or the Jews within our governments, are deliberately bringing in immigrants who are unemployable, dishonest, stupid, retarded, anti-social, following different cultures, are envious of us, and have no intention of joining our society. Our governments don't even try to stop foreign crime networks from getting into and operating within our nation.

Today a woman is a fool to trust a man simply because he is "kind and supportive", or because he has given her gifts and treated her like a queen. None of us can trust or depend upon the people we live with. We are living among business executives, Jews, FBI agents, congressmen, lawyers, journalists, crime networks, immigrants, scientists, professors, charities, doctors, church officials, salesmen, and other people who routinely abuse, lie to, murder, rape, and exploit us.

It is destructive to encourage people, especially children, to trust whoever is "kind and supportive". The people who follow that philosophy are allowing themselves to be abused.

It is also destructive for us to ignore the victims of crimes. Animals don't care what happens to other animals, but we must be concerned with what is happening with other people because everybody today is now indirectly affecting the lives of other people.

For example, the people who get cheated in pyramid schemes, or who purchase worthless products, or who donate money to a dishonest charity, are hurting everybody because they provide financial support to crime networks. This allows the networks to expand their operation and become even more destructive.

We also hurt the world when we ignore people who donate money to charities that are run by criminals. For example, the people who donate money to the Wikipedia, PBS, or the SPLC, are funding an international Jewish crime network.

We suffer even more when we ignore the people who are deceived into voting for criminals or their blackmailed pedophiles, because that allows criminals to get into our government, which hurts everybody in the world, and the future generations.

Brett Cooper is promoting a terrible, destructive, unacceptable attitude by boasting about how she refuses to be critical of people who have been nice to her. She points out that allowing people to have different opinions is "the beauty of America", which is true, but one of the aspects of America that is not beautiful is our lack of standards for people who influence our future. We allow people like her to spread destructive attitudes.

She seems to have a wonderful personality, and is undoubtedly honest and responsible, but that does not qualify her to be a leader of the world, or to give advice to children, or to be a chemist, machinist, or electrical engineer. She has the qualities that we enjoy in a wife and mother, not a leader, police detective, security officer, soldier, or historian.

All nations are suffering by not having standards for the people who influence our lives, or for the information that they provide to us. Every nation is still following the prehistoric attitude of allowing everybody to fight for control of our culture. Every nation is a battleground where thousands of citizens, businesses, religions, charities, and other organizations compete for control our culture and future. No nation yet cares who is influencing us, or why they are influencing us, or whether their influence is beneficial to the human race.

We need help in analyzing people

In my documents for an alternative government, I recommend performing analyses of everybody's intellectual and emotional characteristics, and passing judgment on who qualifies for an influential position.

However, analyzing something as complex as the human mind is so difficult and time-consuming that we need computers to collect data about us, and provide us with analyses that are significantly less biased. We need to collect more data than our minds can deal with, and analyzing such large amounts of data is too difficult and time-consuming.

The remaining sections of this document provide more justification to remove secrecy, gather data about us, analyze everybody's mind, and pass judgment on who has a higher quality mind.

2) We must set standards for influential people

The people who appear on television, create podcasts, and travel around the nation to give lectures to college students, such as Charlie Kirk, Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, and Brett Cooper are not "ordinary" people. They are influential leaders of society because they affect the thoughts and lives of possibly millions of people. The podcast of Candace Owens was regarded as the most popular podcast at the end of 2025.

Although Candace Owens has become very helpful in exposing some of Israel's crimes and lies, and is probably inspiring some people to find the courage to be critical of Israel and laugh at the accusations of anti-Semitism, she and other people who are popular with the public are also promoting a lot of stupid or detrimental information. For example, in November 2025, Tucker Carlson posted this long interview with Dane Wigington to promote the concept that the white trails produced by passenger jets are "chemtrails".

It is more beneficial for us to listen to Candace Owens, Brett Cooper, Stew Peters, and Jimmy Dore, than Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, CNN, ABC, and almost every other journalist. (One of Jimmy Dore's informative videos about Erika Kirk is here.) However, if we had the type of government that I suggest, we would set standards for influential people, and the information they provide, and none of those people would qualify for an influential position.

Cooper, Kirk, and Owens would fail to qualify simply because they are too young, but even if they were older, and even though Candace Owens and Jimmy Dore often provide intelligent analyses, they promote too much detrimental information.

Furthermore, I suggested that only the government be allowed to create organizations, and only the government be allowed to determine who becomes the executive of an organization. That would prohibit Jews from creating such organizations as the ADL and the SPLC, and it would prohibit Jews from putting people, such as Bari Weiss, in control of news agencies, businesses, hospitals, and charities. It would also have prevented the creation of Turning Point USA, which made Charlie Kirk famous.

A brief history of Turning Point USA

In May 2012, Bill Montgomery, a wealthy 72-year-old Christian fanatic, saw Charlie Kirk speak to a group of high school students, and he noticed that Kirk attracted their attention more than the other speakers.

Montgomery, like most men, assumed that he was the most knowledgeable and intelligent man in the universe, and that he should be the leader of the world. Montgomery was upset that a lot of people believed in evolution or a false religion. It occurred to him that Charlie Kirk would be a useful tool in helping him to spread "The Truth" to the college students. He convinced Kirk to drop out of college, and the following month he provided funding and assistance to create the Turning Point USA charity.

This resulted in Charlie Kirk becoming so well known and influential that president Trump gave him a Presidential Medal of Freedom after he was killed. Vice President Vance considers Kirk to be a friend who was "critical" in getting Donald Trump elected, and for convincing Trump to select him as his vice president.

If I was one of those conspiracy theorists that CNN insults, I would wonder if the Jews were so worried that they could not control Donald Trump that they told Vance to switch to the Republican party, and then they introduced him to Charlie Kirk and encouraged Kirk to promote him as vice president. Vance might be one of thousands of people that Israel had blackmailed for use in infiltrating and manipulating our organizations and governments.

Candace Owens was an employee of Turning Point for a while, which increased her popularity. She became so popular that President Trump invited her and her husband to the White House, and she was invited to the White House more than once. Trump even kissed her at least once.

Clemson University was so impressed by her that they spent three years trying to convince her to speak at their university before she finally agreed.

The point of this brief history is that Bill Montgomery created an organization for the sole purpose of promoting his particular beliefs to the college students, and he used Charlie Kirk as a "Pied Piper" to attract the attention of the college students.

Bill Montgomery is an example of how we are tolerating what should be considered as "abuse".

Specifically, Montgomery had the arrogant attitude that he was educating the ignorant college students. That is similar to the attitude of Jehovah's Witnesses and many other religions.

Likewise, Charlie Kirk believed that he was such an educated, super genius that he was qualified to give lectures to students about what to believe, and how to live their life. He also believed that he was qualified to give recommendations to Trump about who should be our vice president.

We ignore or tolerate that type behavior when only a few people do it, but if every person, business, sports group, political organization, author, and charity was giving lectures to students, or going door-to-door to convince us to change our opinions on something, we would quickly become irritated by the daily, or hourly, attempts to "educate" us.

We will have a more peaceful and pleasant social environment when nobody is allowed to educate us. We should require every person to control his arrogance and stop believing that he should be King of the World. Our education system should be under the control of government officials who have no secrecy, and must justify the curriculum.

We will make our lives even more pleasant and relaxing when we prohibit businesses from pushing their products on us, and from trying to manipulate us into believing that their products are superior, and that we need their products.

As I described in my documents for a new government, the people who want to influence our lives should be required to put their brilliant opinions into a document, and post it in a specific area of the Internet. That forces them to provide their brilliant ideas in a passive manner. We should prohibit people from spreading their opinions through lectures, protests, phone calls, and visiting us at our homes or schools.

There are three, very important reasons for requiring people to put their opinions into documents:

	1)		To pressure people to develop their opinions. Humans and other animals are inherently lazy. We don't want to put time and effort into developing our opinions. By requiring us to put our opinions into a document, we are under pressure to develop our opinions. This will not guarantee that everybody will put a significant amount of time and effort into developing their opinions, but it will cause some people to realize that they have nothing of value to say, and so they won't bother posting a document, thereby sparing us from their worthless opinions, and it will cause other people to improve their opinions, at least to a small extent.

	2)		To reduce emotional stimulation. Salesmen, criminals, politicians, and other people have noticed that it is much easier to manipulate people by speaking to them. The reason is because we are animals, and that causes us to be influenced by the appearance, tone of voice, and posture of the person who is speaking to us. This concept is similar to what I described in my suggestions for the AI software. Specifically, robots should look and behave like machines rather than people in order to avoid stimulating our emotions.

	3)		To reduce mistakes. When a person speaks to us, we have to decode his words at a rapid pace, which can result in us misinterpreting some of his words and phrases. Since we cannot memorize his exact sequence of words, it is impossible for us to review what he said. We can only review our imperfect interpretation of his words.

The leadership of Turning Point changed in 2020

In July 2020, Bill Montgomery died from Covid. During the following year, anonymous people donated enormous amounts of money to Turning Point. Unfortunately, we provide people and organizations with so much secrecy that we don't know who donated money after his death, or what type of changes were made after his death, or who made the changes, or why the changes were made.

If I was one of those crazy conspiracy theorists, I would wonder if a group of Jews murdered Montgomery, and then they anonymously donated money to the organization to help it to grow larger so that the Jews could get more influence over more students.

We should not have the freedom to manipulate people

Every nation provides everybody with the freedom to create any type of business, charity, church, hospital, gambling casino, sports contest, beauty contest, and daycare center that they please. There are possibly hundreds of millions of people trying to manipulate our opinions, exploit us for profit or sex, alter our culture, or determine our future. None of the organizations have to show evidence that they are beneficial to society.

The charities do not even have to show evidence that they are spending their money in the manner that they claim. For example, charities can collect money for cancer research without having to show evidence that they are providing most of the money to the cancer research, or that their research programs are beneficial.

With the government I propose, nobody would have the freedom to tell a student that he should drop out of school. Every person would be required to learn a useful skill and get one of the jobs that the government offers, or they would be evicted. Nobody would have the freedom to create their own job, either, so nobody would be able to make a living simply giving lectures about life, as Charlie Kirk did.

Nobody would be able to become an Instagram influencer, either. No organization would be allowed to advertise, so nobody would be able to make a living by creating videos that have advertisements. There would be no such thing as a sponsor, benefactor, or patron.

Furthermore, nobody would have the freedom to create an organization. Nobody would be allowed to create Turning Point USA, the ACLU, ADL, SPLC, JDL, Mormon Church, Scientology, Black Lives Matter, MoveOn, Catholic Church, the National Organization for Women, Jehovah's Witnesses, NAMBLA, California Democratic Party, or any of the other thousands of organizations that try to manipulate our opinions and culture.

Only the government would be able to create organizations, and the government officials would have to routinely justify the existence of the organization they create by showing evidence that it has been beneficial to the human race.

Every citizen would be required to give other people the freedom to make their own decisions about what to do in their leisure time, what type of foods to eat, what to believe, how to dress themselves, and what type of art to enjoy.

Nobody would even be able to create leisure or sports activities, such as wine tasting clubs, baseball contests, pet dog organizations, beauty pageants, or hiking groups. Friends could spend their leisure time doing whatever they pleased, but nobody would not be able to create leisure activities for other people, or push people into doing a particular activity, or criticize other people's leisure activities. Only the government would be able to create and prohibit leisure activities, and the government would have to routinely provide evidence that their activities and organizations are beneficial to the human race.

“I just won't do it!”

Brett Cooper responded to the pressure to be critical of some of her friends with a defiant video in which she proudly boasted that she "just won't do it". Her response was defensive, as if somebody was trying to hurt her baby.

She said that she will not attack Matt or Ben Shapiro, but no one was asking her to attack anybody. However, our emotions regard criticism of ourself and our friends as an attack. The people who follow their emotions rather than their intellect will react to criticism with anger, fighting, crying, hiding, or pouting.

Animals are not critical of themselves or their group. They are critical and suspicious only of other groups of animals. They regard themselves and their group as perfect.

We inherited that attitude from our animal ancestors, and our emotions have not improved much during the past few thousand years, so all of us are continuing to believe that our particular group is superior to other groups.

Almost everybody regards their particular nation, religion, city, school, or other group as the best and most perfect group, and every other group as inferior. This crude, animal attitude results in Harvard students believing that their superior to the students at Yale, and the citizens of China believing that they are superior to the citizens of Taiwan, and the citizens of the USA boasting that they are the greatest people in the world.

Nobody wants to look critically at themselves, or favorably at contradictory ideas. The Japanese and Chinese, for example, do not want look critically at their primitive language, or favorably at the alphabetic languages. The Americans do not want to look critically at the Imperial measurement system, or favorably at the metric system.

We cannot expect the people of the world to work together as one, united team when we behave like stupid animals that form groups that regard themselves as superior to other groups. Modern humans must understand and control their crude emotional cravings. We must refrain from feeling superior to other people so that we can regard ourselves as "ordinary people", and regard other people as potential friends and team members.

Furthermore, we cannot expect the people in the world to live in peace when people react to criticism with anger, defiance, hatred, insults, crying, pouting, or tantrums. We must be able to control our arrogance so that we can look critically at ourselves and our culture, and so that we can look favorably at other people and their cultures.

Brett Cooper responded to the people on the Internet in the same crude manner that the savages in the image to the right are reacting to the wolf.

Brett Cooper is encouraging terrible, destructive behavior by encouraging us to trust whoever is nice to us. If we had high standards for the information that is given to the public, her videos and podcasts about life would be moved it to the Deleted database to let people realize that her information is worthless, destructive, or nonsensical.

To our eyes, Brett Cooper and Ben Shapiro appear to be intelligent, educated, modern humans.

The software could give everybody a "personality grade", with "C" being average, and "A" being the most advanced people.

I have criticized schools for giving students grades from A to F, but that is because the schools are putting students into a competition to do math and memorize information. Schools should help every student develop their skills, learn how to function properly in a modern society, and get a useful job. Students should be considered excellent when they become honest, responsible, contributing members of society, regardless of whether they excel at math or memorizing information.

As I pointed out in other documents, schools developed in ancient Sumeria to teach arithmetic, reading, and writing, so it made sense for those schools to rate the students according to their ability to do arithmetic and memorize the symbols of their language. Today that type of school is inadequate. We need to redesign our schools to fit our modern, complex societies.

Schools today should analyze and rate every student's behavior and personality. Although that will create a lot of envy, anger, and pouting among the students and their parents, it is similar to passing judgment on whether a person should be given a license to become a pilot or a doctor.

In our modern societies, all of us would benefit by knowing who among us has displayed the most honest and responsible behavior, who has shown the most self-control, who is most likely to make the most sensible, intellectual decisions, and who is most likely to follow their emotional cravings and fears like a stupid animal. Knowing who excels at math or memorizing information is only useful for the few people who must hire a person for a job that requires those particular skills.

By having software alter images of us based on our past behavior, we could take a photo of group of people and quickly see who has the most crude behavior, as in the image below.

Although some people might criticize such a feature as a cruel invasion of their privacy, until recently, people could not keep many secrets from each other. Being able to access a database with everybody's information would simply give us the life that our ancestors had. It would allow us to have a much better understanding of the people we live with, and prevent them from deceiving us.

This is not cruel, or an invasion of our privacy. This should be considered a basic right of all people. All of us should have the right to know the truth about the people we live with. Nobody should have the right to deceive us about themselves.

There is nothing wrong with "gossip"

This concept also applies to the issue of "gossip". A lot of people criticize gossip, but in prehistoric times, gossip was a valuable method of passing information around about other people so that everybody knew the truth about one another. Gossip helped them to make decisions about who to become friends with, who to marry, who give the best advice on making tools, and who had the worst temper.

There is no dividing line between "gossip" and "news". Prehistoric people didn't have news agencies, so their only source of information were one another. When they gossiped, they were "passing around news reports"; they were "educating" one another about the people they lived with. They were not hurting one another.

If gossiping was a harmful activity, then the groups of people who were most interested in it would have a disadvantage in life, and they would eventually be defeated by the groups that had the least interest. However, gossiping is a popular activity all around the world, and this is evidence that it has been a valuable feature.

The gossip of a society is a reflection of the people. The higher the quality of people, the more pleasant and educational the gossip is. The lower the quality of the people, the more embarrassing the gossip would be.

During prehistoric times, people lived in small groups of close relatives, and nature killed the most defective people, so almost everybody was in good mental and physical health. There were very few neurotic people with bizarre attitudes and behavior. The gossip of the prehistoric people was educational rather than cruel.

Today the situation is dramatically different. We are now living among people with significant mental disorders and bizarre emotional desires, especially in the USA. A significant amount of people are behaving in crude manners, and many people are also involved with crime networks. This results in a lot of people being afraid of gossip, but we should not pander to them.

These concepts apply to a database of information about ourselves. If we were living among people who were responsible, honest, and well behaved, nobody would complain that computers are collecting data about us. Rather, everybody would realize that the data is useful in helping us to understand ourselves. The people most opposed to gathering of information about ourselves are those who are ashamed of what they do, but we should not let them intimidate us.

We might have to accept adultery.

Creating a database of our behavior is going to bring up the possibility that we discover that humans have a natural desire for adultery. Our ancestors evolved in small groups of close relatives, so there was not a lot of genetic diversity. There were frequently involved with what we would describe as "inbreeding". As a result, the people who had a tendency to commit adultery would have had a slight advantage over the others, but because we are extremely possessive of our spouse, the people had to be secretive with their adultery.

If we create a database of everybody's behavior, including their DNA, it will be easy for us to notice the adulterous behavior. I mentioned in other files that women have a tendency to describe men as "evil" for their adulterous behavior, whereas they don't consider women to be evil when the women do it. Likewise, men become upset or angry when their wife commits adultery, but not when they do it.

In order for a database about human life to be useful, we must raise standards for people so that everybody reacts to the database in a sensible manner, rather than react with anger, pouting, accusations, sarcasm, and other animal behavior.

When we discover something about human behavior that we are shocked by or dislike, we must react to it just as if a zoologist had discovered that train in wolves or skunks. Specifically, we must analyze the behavior, discuss it, and alter our culture to deal with it.

This requires that we restrict leadership positions to people who can acknowledge the evidence that humans are a species of ape. The religious fanatics, and the non-religious people who oppose evolution and genetics, are causing trouble for us by inhibiting our understanding of humans. We must stop accusing one another of being evil, stop trying to use rehabilitation programs on one another, and start analyzing ourselves in the same unbiased manner that we analyze bacteria, peacocks, and daffodils.

All animals have "fetishes"

Every animal's primary purpose is to reproduce, and this results in every animal having fetishes and intense cravings for sex. However, the people who oppose the evidence that humans are a species of ape are preventing us from understanding, acknowledging, and dealing with this issue. They are causing children to become ignorant about sexual issues, and ashamed of a lot of their sexual thoughts and behavior.

Most people believe that only a few people have fetishes, and those people are often insulted or laughed at. In reality, every animal has fetishes. For example, a male moth has a fetish for the scent of a female moth; a female proboscis monkey has a fetish for a big nose, and a female peacock has a fetish for a large display of feathers that look like eyes. A male dog has a fetish for the scent of a female dog. The female birds of paradise have a fetish for males who look a certain way, or dance in a certain manner, or decorate a bower in a particular way.

The males and females of a particular species will evolve to fit their particular fetishes. If the males of a species has a fetish for a particular scent, then the females will produce the scent, and the males will develop an ability to identify it, which can result in the males and females having slightly different abilities to identify odors, which was noticed in the silkworm moths.

If the females of a particular species of spider are titillated by a certain visual image and dance, then the males of that species will develop that particular visual image and dance.

The people who oppose genetics are interfering with our understanding of human sexuality. We don't know a lot about our sexuality, or how it differs from other apes, but it appears as if men have a fetish for clean hair, fingers, toes, and clothing. We also have a fetish for the scent of a female. As a result, women evolved to fit those fetishes. Specifically, they have a strong craving to clean and show off their hair, fingers, toes and clothing, and their bodies evolved to produce a scent that we are attracted to.

Unfortunately, most people have so little control over their sexual inhibitions, and/or are so sexually ignorant, that they don't realize that these "fetishes" are normal human behavior. Many people believe that only "perverts" have "fetishes". In reality, we all have sexual fetishes, but because each of us is a unique jumble of genes, we have subtle differences in our fetishes.

No sexual fetish should be condemned or insulted. Instead, we need to pass judgment on which fetishes we want the future generations to have. For example, do we want people to be attracted to anal sex or eating poop? Do we want men to be attracted to gigantic breasts?

By controlling reproduction, we can reduce the number of people with fetishes that we don't want, and increase the number of people who have the visual appearance, scent, and behavior that we enjoy. This will increase the number of men and women who enjoy themselves and their spouse, and reduce the number of people who are ashamed of themselves and want cosmetic surgery, perfumes, breast implants, nail polish, penis implants, and hair transplants.

Collecting data about ourselves is going to allow us to notice that each of us have fetishes, and that there are subtle differences between us. This requires that we live among people who can react to this information in a sensible manner, rather than with hysteria, pouting, hatred, sarcasm, and insults.

We cannot choose what our fetishes will be, or what our eye color will be, or whether we have flat feet. We must accept the fact that every human is a haphazard jumble of animal genes, and we must accept everybody's particular characteristics and defects. A person with a fetish for something that most of us don't like, such as eating poop, should be able to admit to it without being insulted. He should be regarded as suffering from an unpleasant genetic characteristic, similar to a person who has crooked teeth, an ugly birthmark, astigmatism, or arthritis.

None of us benefit by ridiculing or insulting the people who have genetic characteristics that we dislike, or when we try to change them through rehabilitation programs or punishments, or when we put them into freaks shows to entertain us. That crude, animal reaction degrades our social environment. The only sensible solution to the problem of undesirable genetic characteristics is to restrict reproduction.

Schools must teach the truth about humans

Our schools are providing children with a warped view of human behavior because the world is dominated by people who have trouble understanding or acknowledging that humans are apes.

In order for us to enjoy our modern world and form pleasant relationships with one another, children need a realistic view of humans. They need to be taught that humans are a species of ape, and that men and women have different mental and physical characteristics, and that it is senseless to claim that one sex is better than the other.

The girls need to realize that men have certain sexual characteristics, and that men are not evil or perverted for enjoying the way women look or smell. Joe Biden has been insulted by many people for enjoying the scent of a woman, but he should not be insulted for that. He should be criticized only for grabbing at the women instead of controlling himself.

Some women criticize men for sitting with our legs spread apart. Young girls should be taught that adult men have testicles hanging between our legs, and when we sit down, we have a tendency to spread our legs to reduce the pressure on them. If we can control our sexual inhibitions enough to experiment with seat cushions and clothing, we might be able to find a way to reduce the material pressing against our crotch so that we can sit more comfortably.

We are not useful at giving or receiving criticism

None of us have a problem giving ourselves praise, or insulting other people, but we all resist giving constructive criticism, and we have an especially difficult time of listening to and learning from constructive criticism.

Women have an especially difficult time giving constructive criticism because they have a natural craving to be pleasant. They usually give useful criticism only when they are angry, frustrated, or irritable. Men are better able to give constructive criticism than women, but we tend to resist doing it.

All of us would benefit by having robots provide us with constructive criticism. That will allow us to listen to the criticism when we are in the mood, and when we are alone with a robot so that we don't have to be bothered by embarrassment. All of us are less likely to become angry at a robot than a person. Women tend to hold grudges against people who criticize them, but I doubt that they would hold a grudge against a robot. I suspect that they would be much more willing to listen to criticism from a robot, and try to learn from it, even though they might complain to the robot, as in the image below.

We don't want a robot to criticize us, but modern humans need the ability to listen and learn from critical analyses, and improve their behavior as a result.

By restricting reproduction to the better behaved people, the future generations will eventually be so well behaved that the analysis will be pleasant.