An exhibit that simulates the moon would have a floor that was covered with gray, crushed and powdered rock. There could be a walkway over the crushed rocks to allow people to walk through the area without getting particles in their shoes. For the people who want to walk on the moon, we could let them to get into pressurized suits that are attached to the ceiling by wires so that the person's weight is reduced, thereby giving him the sensation that he is on the moon.

Rather than send people to the moon or Mars, it would be much more sensible to put our technology into exhibits that simulate these trips. This would allow everybody to make trips into outer space, including people who are too old for space travel.

Modern technology gives us the ability to create museum exhibits that are spectacular and informative. An exhibit of space travel would allow people to satisfy their curiosity about space, and I think it would also help people to realize that the moon would be entertaining for only a few hours or days.

I think most people would quickly come to the conclusion that the crushed rocks on the moon's surface are boring, and the most spectacular aspect of the moon is being able to watch the Earth. I think that after visiting these exhibits, most people would come to the conclusion that the Earth is the most spectacular item in the universe. I also think people would come to the conclusion that pressurized spacesuits are more annoying than the most cumbersome winter clothing.

I suspect that a Mars exhibit would be less popular than an exhibit which takes people into orbit around the Earth or to the moon. The reason is because the Mars exhibit would have nothing to look at except stars and crushed rocks.

In this previous document, I pointed out that bicycles are being designed according to irrational consumer desires, and that if we eliminate free enterprise, most or all of our products will be redesigned, and many will be discontinued. I think the same situation will happen with many of our social and recreational activities. Without free enterprise, a lot of the activities that businesses are currently providing will be redesigned or discontinued.

For example, in the city I live in, there are regular festivals, such as Lemon festivals, French festivals, and Italian festivals. However, the primary activity at these festivals is the selling of foods, jewelry, and other items. Businesses are designing these festivals according to how they can profit from them. These are "business festivals", not "social festivals". The people who attend these festivals rarely meet new people, participate in any activity, get any useful exercise, or learn anything about themselves or the world. All they do is slowly wander around the businesses, eat or drink, and occasionally watch some group of people dance or sing.

Coffee shops are very popular in America, but I don't think it is because humans truly have a strong craving to drink large quantities of coffee in public. I think the coffee shops are the non-alcoholic equivalent of a bar. I think coffee shops and bars are popular because the world is full of lonely people, and these type of businesses provide people with the opportunity to get out of their house and be among other people.

The problem with coffee shops and bars is that their primary goal is selling as much food and drinks as possible, not helping people to meet one another or form stable friendships or marriages.

Gyms are also popular in America, but part of their popularity also seems to be because of the large quantity of lonely people who are looking for friends and a spouse. Unfortunately, the gyms are also an inefficient way of dealing with the problem of loneliness.

If we were capable of providing ourselves with government officials who truly cared about society, and if we did not have to deal with a free enterprise system, then we could design our city for human life rather than for businesses. For some examples:

• Our city festivals could be designed to encourage people to participate in activities rather than purchase items or watch other people do things.
• We could put as much effort into museum exhibits as we put into sports stadiums and Disneyland attractions, thereby creating exhibits that we enjoy visiting more than once.
• We could provide activities that are specifically designed to help us find compatible friends and a spouse.

If we also eliminate money, then we don't have to be bothered purchasing tickets for museum exhibits, recreational activities, social affairs, or meals. This would encourage people to get out of their house and do something rather than sit at home.

If some activities, recreational areas, or museum exhibits became so popular that they were overcrowded, the city would respond by creating more variations of them. For example, if a particular pond was attracting so many snorkelers and swimmers that the pond was becoming crowded, the city could build a new pond in a different location of the city, and it would be designed differently to provide variety. If a museum exhibit was becoming crowded, then the city could make another, similar exhibit, and they might put it in a different location of the city.

We have the ability to create museum exhibits that are more interesting and informative than anything we find at Disneyland or the IMAX theaters. We could provide them with high quality video displays, and we could provide some of them with virtual-reality helmets. Those type of exhibits could provide us with images and descriptions of Stonehenge, Antarctica, the petrified forest, and the coral reefs that we would never be able to see if we were to travel to those sites as a tourist.

The museum exhibits could provide us with video from drones, and there could be both slow-motion video and time-lapse video. Unlike a tourist, we would be able to observe events that are too slow to see, such as the movement of glaciers, or the movement of the sun through the Stonehenge rocks. There could be video made with infrared light to show us the animals or events that we cannot see during the daytime, or with visible light. There could be video from robotic cameras that are underwater, in the air, and traveling underground in gopher holes or caves.

If we change our society and our attitudes towards life, we could create museums that provide us with a tremendous amount of interesting information. We would learn more about the universe by visiting those displays than if we were to travel to the areas.

Furthermore, if we design a city as I've suggested, namely, clusters of large, tall buildings, there will be lots of areas in the buildings that don't have access to sunlight. People do not want to live, work, or eat in those enclosed areas, so we should use those areas for museum exhibits, video rooms, storage areas, and electrical equipment.

The photo to the right shows a planetarium in Berlin. As with many warehouses, theaters, and museums, it does not need windows. By making these structures freestanding, they waste land and sunlight. We would create a more attractive and compact city if we put those structures inside larger buildings or underground.

The photo below is of Vancouver, but I altered the buildings to make them taller. The outer sections of the buildings, which have windows, would be for apartments, social clubs and restaurants. The insides of the buildings would be for storage, video rooms, museums, laundry, and equipment.

For another example, if the people who enjoy gardening, growing orchids, and creating bonsai trees were capable of working with other people for the benefit of society, then instead of doing gardening for themselves, they could get together to create spectacular gardens for the parks, restaurants, and recreational areas. Everybody would appreciate and benefit from their talents.

However, I should once again remind you that creating better museums, city festivals, school systems, government systems, etc., requires finding better people, especially for leadership positions. For example, right now there are museums around the world that are promoting the propaganda that Nazis gassed and burned 6 million Jews, and which promote the lies about Anne Frank's diary. We cannot create a better city if the voters continue to elect Angela Merkel, Hillary Clinton, and Al Gore.

During the past year or so, a tremendous number of videos, articles, and comments have appeared on the Internet to promote the theory that the Earth is flat rather than spherical. Why is there a sudden increase in this theory?

If you look at a few of the Flat Earth videos and articles, you should be able to figure out that the group of people promoting this theory are the same people who are trying to blame the 9/11 attack on the Vatican, the Bush family, the bankers, or somebody other than Jews and Israel. Obviously, Jews have decided to promote the theory that the Earth is flat, but why?

Psychologists believe that criminals are just ordinary people who picked up criminal attitudes from the environment. Although it is true that children regularly pick up destructive attitudes, idiotic expressions, and bad habits from other people, adults who commit crimes are making a conscious decision to do so.

Probably everybody who has a driver's license has committed a crime, such as exceeding the speed limit, or not stopping completely at a stop sign, but ignore those trivial crimes and consider why some adults commit burglary, rape, murder, bribery, and blackmail.

We cannot blame these types of crimes on the environment. The adults who commit those crimes are living in the same environment as millions of other people. They are committing crimes because they have chosen to do so, and the only sensible explanation is because there is something different about the way their brain is functioning.

Some criminals may have physical disorders that interfere with their blood chemistry, which in turn interferes with the function of their brain. Others may be suffering from mental disorders that make it difficult for them to hold a job, think properly, enjoy life, and form stable relationships. Some of them may have psychotic cravings for wealth, excessive selfishness, or extreme levels of anger. Some of them may have a mind that is more similar in some respects to a monkey than a modern human.

The mental disorders of criminals make it difficult for us to understand their behavior. It is much easier for us to understand criminals when they are young because the younger a person is, the more similar he behaves to an animal, and that makes his behavior less complex and easier to understand.

For example, why do teenage gang members spend so much of their time marking their name or gang logo on walls? Furthermore, note that when they put their logos in a public area, other people respond by quickly removing them, and the gangs respond by putting the logos back on the walls. Why do they continually put their logos on walls when they realize that we don't want their logos, and that we are going to remove their logos, possibly within a day or two? Why don't they put their logos in areas where they can remain permanently, such as their clothing, homes, furniture, or automobiles?

Most of us cannot understand that behavior because we have no desire to do it, but we can understand it when we realize that male animals have a strong craving to mark their territory with odors. Furthermore, note that animals do not care if their markings are permanent. As soon as their markings are removed by the rain or covered over by another animal, they put their odors back. They don't care if they have to mark the same area over and over, for years. Also, note that animals do not care if another animal disapproves of his markings. Animals are arrogant, and they mark any area that they want to claim as their territory. They don't care if other animals become angry at them.

The similarity in behavior between animals and gang members leads me to conclude that the graffiti of gang members is the human equivalent of an animal that identifies his territory with scents.

Although animals can help us understand teenage gangs, animals do not do anything that is similar to promoting the flat Earth theory, so it's difficult to figure out why the Jews would do this.

Perhaps the Jews are concerned that every day more people are discovering that NASA lied about the Apollo moon landings. Perhaps the Jews believe that they can counteract this awareness and improve NASA's image by creating the impression that the people who doubt the Apollo moon landing also believe the Earth is flat, and, therefore, these "conspiracy theorists" are idiots who should be insulted rather than listened to. Some people describe this trick as "contaminating the punch bowl".

If the Jews are promoting the flat Earth theory in order to support the Apollo moon landing, that leads us to the question of why would the Jews, especially those in other nations, care if the Apollo moon landing is exposed as a hoax. If the hoax was perpetrated by Americans, then exposing the hoax would make America look bad, not Israel or Jews. So why would Jews want to keep this hoax covered up?

Perhaps the reason is because Jews had a significant role in it, or a significant role in the murdering, blackmailing, sabotaging, and bribing of people who opposed the hoax.

NASA is also involved with promoting carbon taxes, so perhaps the Jews are concerned that people are losing respect for NASA, and that is making it more difficult for the Jews to convince people to accept carbon taxes.

Or perhaps the Jews are worried that exposing such a large crime will have a domino effect in that people begin wondering what else they have been lied to about. A person who realizes that he has been lied to about the Apollo moon landing is much more likely to seriously consider the "crazy" conspiracy theories that Jews demolished the World Trade Center towers with explosives, and that the Jews are lying about the Holocaust. He is also less likely to trust the scientists and professors who promote carbon taxes, and he is less likely to trust the government officials who advocate a war with Iran or North Korea.

Until recently, the Jews were very successful in manipulating nations because they had fooled people into trusting both the Jews and the people in positions of authority. The Jews also fooled most people into believing that Jews are victims of mysterious anti-Semites, and that we are heroes when we feel sorry for and protect the Jews.

However, during the past 10 to 15 years, the Internet has allowed millions of people around the world to discover the truth about the Jews, and this knowledge has caused them to become more suspicious of both Jews and our authorities. These people are much more difficult for the Jews to manipulate compared to the naive sheeple.

The Jews need us to be submissive, ignorant, apathetic, trusting, and willing to follow orders without question. They don't want us to be educated, independent, concerned about society, interested in thinking for ourselves, or looking critically at the people in positions of authority.

NASA and many other people are continually trying to find evidence that there is life all over the universe. Although some people are truly curious about this issue, the Jews seem to be more interested in finding evidence of life so that they can fake an alien invasion in order to gain more control over the planet. This would explain why our government has secretly created several types of aircraft that resemble the spacecraft that Hollywood has created for aliens.

It is easy to conduct experiments to determine how quickly a living creature can develop from chemicals. For example, we could pulverize some dead animals, dirt, and plants. Then we add whatever other chemicals or elements we believe are necessary for the creation of life, such as ammonia, nitrogen, methane, potassium, and sulfur. We then pour that mixture into a container, seal it, and sterilize it. We then let the chemicals react with one another, and we expose them to whatever we believe creates life, such as lightning, gamma rays, low or high pressure, and ultraviolet light. We could create thousands of these containers, and expose them to different environments.

If life can easily develop from chemicals, then it would have a very easy time developing from a puree of dead animals and plants because that "soup" would have billions of pieces of DNA, RNA, and other biological chemicals. If life does not quickly develop in that type of soup, how easy would it be for life to develop when the soup consists of simpler chemicals?

If it were easy for life to develop from chemicals, then life would be developing all the time here on the Earth. Our planet is full of biological molecules, and they are being exposed to a wide variety of conditions, such as heat, pressure, electricity, and radiation, but how often do those chemicals spontaneously create life?

Some people might respond that new forms of life are being created all the time, but because they are very simplistic, they are quickly destroyed by the more advanced bacteria and other forms of life that already exist. If that were true, then we would be able to observe the new forms of life by putting the chemicals into a sealed container that has been sterilized.

For all we know, life is not easy to create. The Earth may be the first planet to have life. The creation of life might require a series of thousands of extremely unlikely events. Specifically, some molecules would have to collide with one another in just the right manner in order to create another type of chemical, and then some of those chemicals have to collide with one another in just the right manner in order to create some other chemicals, and so on. Some of the chemicals that are needed to create life might be created only when large comets crash into pools of hot water in volcanic areas, such as those at Yellowstone National Park.

A series of bizarre coincidences might have to occur thousands of times before life develops. If we understood the universe, we might discover that the odds of some of these events occurring is one with 10 billion zeros, and that life requires thousands of those unlikely events to occur. The odds of that happening may be a number so enormous that we cannot comprehend it.

Some scientists are claiming that the universe is only 14 billion years old, but for all we know, the universe is trillions of times older than that. We don't really know much about the universe. As I pointed out in other documents, nothing about the universe even makes sense. I would not be surprised if everybody is completely mistaken about what the universe is.

When the Wright brothers flew an airplane for the first time, they impressed a lot of people with their amazing, "modern" technology, but we consider their airplane to be worthless and crude. We should assume that our descendants will feel the same about our technology. Robots are an excellent example of this. Many people are impressed by our robots, but future generations will regard our robots as unbelievably crude and worthless.

Scientists should have the intelligence to realize that this same situation occurs with theories about the universe, dinosaurs, evolution, and everything else. We regard our theories as brilliant and nearly 100% correct, but future generations will regard them as crude and inaccurate.

For all we know, space is a substance, but it may not be a solid material, like rubber. Space may be able to move, perhaps like water can move, or perhaps like magnetic fields can move. A galaxy, for example, is described as a group of stars that are swirling around one another, but for all we know, it would be more accurate to describe a galaxy as a group of stars that are in a swirling pool of space, and that the stars are dragged around, like leaves in a whirlpool. The stars and planets may also drag space around with them, similar to the way the water molecules that are touching the surface of leaves are dragged along with those leaves, creating what physicists describe as a "boundary layer".

Why does the moon always face the Earth? Why does Mercury always face the sun? Why are all of the planets traveling in nearly the same plane, and in the same direction? Why are all of the stars in a galaxy traveling in nearly the same plane, and in the same direction? It could be because space is moving, and each star and planet is dragging space around with it, and the closer objects are one another, the more each of them is affected by the "boundary layer" of space that is "clinging" to the other object.

It is entertaining to create theories about the universe, but none of our theories can adequately explain the mysteries of the universe.
 
NASA wants us to believe that there is life all over the universe, but there may not be any life anywhere except here on the Earth. For all we know, trillions of galaxies have formed and vanished before life developed on the Earth.

Astronomers have already spent a lot of time searching for radio signals from other solar systems, but they have found nothing. I think we should face the fact that if life exists, we do not have the technology to notice it, so we are wasting our time and resources to continue looking for it. Also, I think that looking for life is giving people a bad attitude. Specifically, it encourages people to fantasize about space travel and aliens. It encourages people to get telescopes and look at outer space rather than enjoy the beauty of the Earth.

Rather than promote space travel, telescopes, and aliens on other planets, I think it would be much more beneficial to encourage people to focus their attention here on the Earth. The photo below is of the Huntington Library in Los Angeles. Imagine living in a city in which all of the apartment buildings, office buildings, and factories are surrounded by gardens, parks, recreational areas, social clubs, creeks, foot paths, and swimming areas. You would not have to travel a long distance to enjoy the Earth. All you would have to do is look out the window, or take an elevator ride to the ground floor and step outside. In this type of city, you might discover that you enjoy walking or riding a bicycle to your job, a restaurant, or a social club.

We have a lot of options to make our cities beautiful and interesting. All we have to do is start discussing which of our options we would like to experiment with, and then do it. For example, we could design some ponds in the manner that we create aquariums. Specifically, we could put interesting rocks, caves, statues, and lights in the pond in order to provide the fish and turtles with homes, provide the plants with a base to grow on, and make the pond more interesting for people who want to snorkel or scuba dive.

I think people who are living in that type of city will enjoy life much more than people who are spending their time with Star Wars fantasies and telescopes. Looking through a telescope is a lonely activity that is best conducted in isolated, dark areas at night. I don't think a society benefits by encouraging such activities.

I think it would be better for scientists to be honest about space travel so that people realize that the Earth is the most beautiful object that we know of. We should enjoy our brief moment on this planet rather than fantasize about getting off the planet. We should focus on the Earth, not on outer space. We should send robots to explore the universe, and we should go to museums to see the video that the robots send back to the Earth.

We should not waste our technical talent and resources on appeasing wealthy people who have trouble enjoying life or who have intense cravings to feel special. Society should be designed for the people we consider to be "mentally healthy".

This leads me back to the question I asked earlier. Scientists should have the intelligence to realize that space travel is miserable, so why is NASA promoting space tourism?

The image to the right is another of the travel posters that NASA commissioned. That poster tries to fool people into believing that tourists will be able to drift slowly among the clouds on Jupiter in a hot air balloon, and that we will see auroras that are more spectacular than those on the Earth.

People have no desire to ride a hot air balloon at night near the Earth's poles to see auroras, so why would anybody want to do that on Jupiter? Most people would rather look at auroras in the photographs or video that was taken by people who suffered through the cold, lonely, nighttime sky, and who understand photography well enough to know how to capture events that are difficult for the human eye to see.

Why doesn't NASA want to send machines to explore space? Why won't NASA be honest about the dangers and monotony of outer space?

Only NASA knows for sure, but it might be because the proposals to send people to Mars are so difficult that the projects will require decades of funding, thereby providing thousands of NASA employees and officials with a high income for decades. In other words, NASA may be trying to boost interest in space travel so that they can justify a large budget.

NASA may have more worthless people and criminals than it has talented engineers and scientists. It may be better described as a "Den of Criminals" who are more interested in promoting carbon taxes than space exploration.

The NASA poster for Jupiter makes it appear as if observing auroras is fun, but if there was a museum exhibit on auroras, it could provide us with lots of high quality photos and video from photographers at different locations on the Earth. In addition to seeing different auroras, we would see different landforms, trees, creeks, and lakes. Furthermore, we would be able to watch both time-lapse video and slow-motion video, thereby providing us with a better understanding of what is going on in the atmosphere. We could also watch videos of the auroras taken from satellites and the space station. We would learn more about auroras at that exhibit than we would by traveling to those destinations. When we have the technology to send probes to Jupiter, the probes could send back video of the auroras on Jupiter, and that would allow us to learn about Jupiter's sky from the comfort of the Earth.

People are currently watching documentaries about African wildlife, whales, penguins, bird migrations, and butterflies on their television at home, and many people assume that if they were to travel to those same locations, they would see the same scenes. In reality, those photographers spent a lot of time following the animals to get just a few moments of video. They also suffered from heat, cold, insects, and brutal sleeping conditions. The photographers who traveled into caves to show us the bats living inside had to suffer from stench and filth.

Rather than encouraging tourism, I think it would be better for a city to provide lots of free video rooms and museum exhibits that have large, high quality video monitors. If you were living in that type of city, then instead of inviting a friend to your house to watch a program on your small television, you could invite several people to one of the video rooms to watch a video on a large, high quality monitor. It would be less awkward to invite people to one of those video rooms because you would be inviting them to a public area where they can freely come and go without feeling uncomfortable.

In a city in which there are lots of free, public recreational areas, video rooms, social clubs, restaurants, and other activities, some people might hardly ever go home, except to sleep and change their clothing. Some people might spend almost all of the day and evening in the city.

If we could create large space stations that spin to produce artificial gravity, we would make space travel much more pleasant. If an astronaut looked out the window, he would see stars moving around him. Would that have any effect on him, such as making him dizzy? This issue has no importance, but it makes me wonder if being on a spinning spaceship would really be as comfortable as being on the Earth.

When I am in an automobile, and I am the first in line at a red light waiting to turn left, and the perpendicular street is allowing cars to make a left turn, those cars cross very close to me. I've noticed that if watch each of them as they pass by me, I have to move my eyes back and forth very quickly, and it feels like I'm going to get dizzy. I feel more comfortable if I stare at straight ahead and ignore the cars. What would happen if I was on a spinning spacecraft and I watched the stars moving around me?

When we look out of the window in an airplane, the items outside are moving horizontally, but in a spinning spacecraft, the stars would move vertically from a window on the outer circumference of the spacecraft, and in a circle if we were looking out of a window that was on the side of the spacecraft. Would either view make us dizzy? Would we prefer not to look out the window? Or would only some people be affected by it?

It seems that all of the intelligent animals are maintaining a three-dimensional image of the world inside their mind. This allows us to turn our heads without the world spinning around us. It also allows us to close our eyes, move to another location, and when we open our eyes we have an accurate idea of where we are.

Maintaining a 3-D image of the world also prevents "voids" in our visual image. Processing the data from our eyes takes a certain amount of time. By maintaining a 3-D model in our mind, then we do not have to process the visual data as thoroughly. All we have to do is compare the image that is coming from our eyes to the model in our mind, and that will show us our orientation, and what has changed.

If we did not maintain a 3-D model in our mind, then every time we moved our eyes, our brain would have to spend time trying to figure out what we were looking at. If we rotated our head, our eyes would send hundreds of images, and it's unlikely that we would be able to process the images fast enough. This would cause the images to develop "voids", similar to the problem of watching a video via the Internet when the data is not coming into the computer fast enough.

By comparison, birds may not maintain a 3-D model of the world in their mind. This would explain why they move their head in a jerking manner. By holding their head in one position for as long as possible, and then quickly moving it to another position, they reduce the amount of visual data that they have to process.

After Donald Trump won the New Hampshire primary, some journalists posted insulting articles about him, and some also insulted the people who voted for him. The New York Daily News described the people who voted for him as "brainless", "brain dead", and "mindless zombies". That newspaper has had so many insulting images and headlines that if you did not know that it was a newspaper, you would assume it was entertainment. (They have a gallery of their covers about the 2016 presidential election here.)

The Huffington Post posted an article with the headline "A Racist, Sexist Demagogue Just Won The New Hampshire Primary". At the end of the article was a note:
Editor's note: Donald Trump is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist, birther and bully who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims -- 1.6 billion members of an entire religion -- from entering the U.S.

I regularly criticize government officials as "incompetent", and voters as "sheeple", and I created many insulting images of people, so what is the difference between my articles and those from the New York Daily News and the Huffington Post? Am I hypocritical to complain about their insults? No. For one reason, I don't describe my opinions as "news". If I was being paid to write news articles, I would make an attempt to suppress my opinions.

Second, and more important, I provide explanations for why I describe people as sheeple, and why I describe government officials as incompetent. I am not "insulting" anybody. Rather, I am providing my critical analysis of them.

There is no clear dividing line between a "critical analysis" and an "insult", but don't let the complexity of modern life overwhelm you. People today should learn to pass judgment on when journalists and other people are trying to provide analyses, and when they are merely producing insults or propaganda.

The reason I am discussing the attacks on Donald Trump is to remind you of how easy it is for journalists to manipulate us. A person's opinions depend upon the information in his mind. If your mind is full of false or deceptive information, your opinions will be idiotic regardless of how intelligent you are.

A restaurant that offers "lobster" dinners should provide lobster, but as I was writing this document, an analysis of 28 restaurants showed that 35% of the meat that they described as "lobster" was from some other creature. There was also an investigation of cheese that showed that some businesses were adding excessive amounts of cellulose to their cheese because it was an inexpensive filler, and some were substituting less expensive cheeses for more expensive cheeses.

Journalist are willing to expose the deception among restaurants and cheese producers, but if they were to do an investigation of news articles, they would discover that a significant percentage of news articles should be described as "false advertising" because they are either entertainment, or they contain lies and deceptive remarks in an attempt to manipulate the reader.

If the New York Daily News described themselves as the New York Daily Insults, I would not complain about them, but we should not tolerate journalists who describe entertainment, opinions, or insults as "news".

Likewise, when journalists interview people, they should be honest about the purpose of the interview. Is it for entertainment, such as to discuss what type of food, hobbies, or clothing the person enjoys? Or is it to help people get to know the person, such as by discussing his life and his goals? Or is it to get clarification on some of his theories or proposals? Or is it to confront him over issues that some people disagree with?

Unfortunately, journalists are not yet fired for deceiving people about their interviews. This is allowing journalists to get away with interviews in which they pretend to be truly interested in providing the person with a chance to explain his opinions, when in reality they are trying to manipulate the conversation and make the person look bad.

What is the difference between a "news article" and a school's "history book"? The difference should be that a news article is a brief description of one event that happened recently, whereas history books are a collection of descriptions about many events that happened years or centuries earlier.

What is the difference between the work of a journalist and the work of an author of a school's history book? The only difference should be that the journalist must write articles quickly, whereas the author of a history book can spend years doing research and editing. Other than that, their jobs are identical. Both a journalist and an author of a history book are analyzing events and passing judgment on which information about the event is valuable for other people to know about.

If journalists would write news articles properly, their articles would be valuable sources of information about the world. The authors of history books would be able to extract information from the news articles in order to create history books. Unfortunately, all nations have allowed a group of Jews to get control of their media and schools, and those Jews are censoring and criticizing the people and information that they don't approve of, and they are regularly lying to us about events and people.

By controlling which information gets into our minds, they are able to cover up their crimes, and they can cause us to like or dislike certain people, nations, and ideas. I explained how they did this with Whitney Houston (here) and Michael Jackson (here). The Jews also used this trick with Christopher Bollyn after he and his family disappeared mysteriously, but my information about him is scattered in several articles because I wrote them as events were happening, such as this.

Many people are concerned about the food they put into their body, but not many people show a concern about the quality of the information that they put into their mind. The people who are getting information from the television news, the New York Daily News, the Huffington Post, and other Jewish publications, are feeding their mind with what should be visualized as rotten, unhealthy food.

Most people would be disgusted with a restaurant if they purchased "beef stroganoff" and later discovered it was actually "roadkill stroganoff" that was made from whatever dogs, skunks, and oppossums the chef had picked up along the side of the road as he was driving to work. Ideally, people would be just as disgusted with journalists and authors who give us news and history that is actually lies, propaganda, or deception.

The Jews were less insulting with Whitney Houston and Michael Jackson than they are with Donald Trump, and the journalists did not refer to the people who admired Houston or Jackson as "brainless" or as "mindless zombies".

No matter what Donald Trump says or does, many journalists criticize him for it. For example, when Donald Trump ignored a critical remark about Obama from one of his supporters, many journalists criticized Trump for ignoring the remark rather than reprimanding the person. At another speech on 8 February 2016, a woman in the audience yelled out an insult about Ted Cruz, and this time Trump stopped his speech to remind the audience that journalists had criticized him for ignoring remarks from his supporters, so he reprimanded her. When he realized that most of the audience could not hear her, he repeated her insult that Ted Cruz was a "pussy". And then he made such jokes as, "So I just want to tell you right now, ma'am, you're reprimanded!" and, "So, for the press, this is a serious reprimand. Just so the press knows."

I would describe the incident as amusing, but many journalists insulted him. One headline was: "Donald Trump Shocks With Vulgar Language Before New Hampshire Primary", but who did Donald Trump shock? I suspect that more people were entertained.

A journalist at the New York Daily News lied about the incident. Her headline was: "Donald Trump criticizes Ted Cruz, calls him a ‘pussy’ at New Hampshire rally". She repeated her accusation in the article: "Foul-mouthed GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump called his rival Sen. Ted Cruz a “pussy” Monday night..."

Donald Trump did not call Ted Cruz a pussy. If we had higher standards for journalists, they would be fired or arrested for such accusations. These journalists are not merely making mistakes; rather, they are deliberately trying to manipulate their readers with deceptive and false information.

Furthermore, the journalists show tremendous bias. For example, Ralph Peters, a retired Army lieutenant colonel, called Obama a "total pussy" during a television interview, and he said that people are "pissed off", but journalists did not criticize him for using those expressions.

Incidentally, his use of the word "total" is as meaningless as if he had said, "Obama is a total loser", or, "people are totally pissed off". A lot of people are using the word "total" and "totally" to emphasize an adjective, but that use of the word should be regarded as totally improper.

A lot of younger people today are also starting sentences with "so", and "I mean" but without any purpose. When I was a child, a lot of children would start sentences with "Ummm", and we were reprimanded for it, but not many adults today are dampening the use of idiotic expressions.

The British government has a lot of problems to deal with, such as refugees, traffic congestion, crime, pollution, unemployment, rising healthcare costs, obesity, and overcrowding. And they still have not dealt with the pedophilia among their media companies, police departments, and government offices. However, despite all of their problems, they have chosen to waste some of their time on a debate about whether they should ban Trump from visiting Britain.

The British government claims that Donald Trump is spreading hatred, but we could say almost everybody is spreading hatred. The organized religions are spreading hatred by encouraging their members to believe that they are superior to everybody else. The Jews are spreading hatred by conducting false flag operations that create hatred of Muslims and Nazis. And journalists are spreading hatred with their insults of Donald Trump.

Tens of millions of people do not want Trump to become President, but they do not show much anger or fear of Trump. From my own casual observations, the people showing the extreme levels of anger and fear of Trump are Jews and people who support Israel. Considering that Trump's daughter is married to a Jew and converted to Judaism, and considering that Trump works with Jews all the time, why are Jews so frightened of him?

I think the Jews are worried that Trump will become president, and that they have no way to control him. Perhaps they don't have any useful blackmail material over him. To further frighten the Jews, Trump regularly shows more independence than other government officials. He has even stood up to a reporter who was trying to manipulate a conversation about abortion. Did you see this video? Trump says he likes to fight, and he showed it in that video. That is not the behavior that Jews want from us.

Some people think Trump is partly Jewish, but having a Jewish ancestor doesn't guarantee that a person will be a supporter of Israel, or a supporter of the Jews who murder, kidnap, rape, or spread diseases. Did you see this video of a Jew trying to smuggle diseased eucalyptus leaves into Australia? Does Trump support Jews who do that?


During this interview, Trump mentioned the issue of Bill Clinton's connection to Jeffrey Epstein. He did not say anything about that connection, but merely bringing up the issue is doing more than what most people have done; which is to ignore Epstein. Why didn't Trump ignore Epstein, also? Perhaps the reason is because Trump does not support what many people assume Epstein was doing; namely, offering men the chance to have sex with young girls, and then secretly recording them so that they can be blackmailed by the Jews. Trump may also be appalled with some of Epstein's victims.

In order for the Jews to control a nation, they need to ensure that everybody in an influential position is under their control. When a political candidate gets favorable publicity, or when a person is given a major role in a Hollywood movie or television show, you ought to wonder why the Jews are willing to trust that person in an influential position. Don't assume that those people are simply more talented than the rest of us. The most likely reason that the person is getting publicity by Jews is because he is willing to get on his hands and knees and squeal like a pig when the Jews tell him to do so.

For example, when Barack Obama ran for president in 2008, not many Americans knew of him. People should have wondered why so many Jews were suddenly giving a lot of publicity to an unknown candidate. If you have ever overheard Jews insult black people and Chinese people, then you should be especially suspicious when Jews give favorable publicity to a black or Chinese person.

The Jews explained Obama's mysterious rise from obscurity as being due to the Internet, and my father was fooled with that propaganda. My father did not have a computer or know how to use the Internet, so he believed the news reports that Obama became popular because of the people on the Internet. However, I was using the Internet at the time Obama became popular, and I never noticed people on the Internet discovering Obama and spreading information about him. I only noticed some Jews promoting him.

I suspect that the Jews promoted Obama for president in 2008 because they wanted Hillary Clinton to win, and they wanted to provide her with opponents that she could beat. By offering Obama as an opponent, the Jews would fool the voters into believing that the Democrats offer a variety of choices for president, and that Democrats are more friendly to black people than the Republicans. The Jews undoubtedly expected Obama to lose in a Caucasian nation, and they didn't worry about giving Obama publicity because they assumed that they had enough blackmail material to control him.

The Jews were undoubtedly shocked and upset when Obama beat Clinton, but initially they did not worry because they assumed that he would follow their orders.

I think the Jews started the "birther movement" when Obama showed signs of rebellion and independence, and that they also spread accusations that Obama is homosexual or bisexual, that he used drugs, and that he lied about his college education. I think they released that information in an attempt to intimidate Obama.

All of the accusations were probably true; otherwise, they would have no value as blackmail material. Fortunately, some people in Hawaii apparently faked a birth certificate for him, and most of the population never noticed or cared about the other accusations.

Whenever you find Jews promoting a candidate, you ought to wonder how the Jews are controlling that candidate. For example, Wayne Madsen is claiming that Marco Rubio is homosexual and lying about why his parents left Cuba. Although Madsen and the other "truth seekers" cannot be trusted, most of what they say is the truth mixed with some propaganda.

Not many people notice or care about what Wayne Madsen posts on his website, so you might wonder why the Jews would want him to post those accusations. The reason is because it allows them to say to Marco Rubio, "Look at what Madsen is exposing about you on the Internet. If you cooperate with us, we will make sure that his remarks do not get any more publicity."

If Rubio shows a rebellious attitude, the Jews would go to the warehouse in Israel where they keep blackmail material, and they would provide Madsen with more information and better photos.

The Jews are not frightened of Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Hillary Clinton, or the other candidates, and that is a sign that the Jews believe that they can control them. Their fear of Donald Trump is a sign that they don't have any way of controlling him. To further frighten the Jews, Donald Trump repeatedly shows both independence and a willingness to fight the people who annoy him.

Trump is not the type of person the Jews want in a leadership position. The Jews are already furious that Obama has shown some independence, and Trump is much more independent than Obama, so he will be even more difficult to control.

The Jews want a candidate who has a personality like Bob Dylan and the other "celebrities" who are willing to follow orders in return for being provided with wealth and fame. Trump might have just as much craving for wealth and fame as the Hollywood celebrities, but he does not seem willing to become somebody's submissive puppet.

The easiest people to blackmail are those who are submissive and timid. They will quietly do what the blackmailer demands. By comparison, a person who is more independent and more of a fighter may respond, "Go ahead and try it!"

The problem that blackmailers have is that blackmail is not of much value if everything is exposed to the public because that exposes the blackmailers also. The blackmailers do not want to get into a fight because they fear publicity. The victim is frightened by the blackmailer, but the blackmailer is frightened of being exposed.

If the victim refuses to give in to the blackmailer, the blackmailer may not be able to do anything about it. For example, Barack Obama ignored the birther movement, and even made some jokes about his birth certificate, but what could the Jews do about it? They could not release the information that they knew. If the television news reporters were to expose Obama's birth certificate as a fraud, that leads to the question of how the news journalists knew this information, and how many other people knew, and why all of these people kept this a secret for so many years. It exposes the Jews who have been blackmailing Obama.

Therefore, the birther movement could not expose the information that they knew about Obama. They could not announce to the public, "Here is a copy of Obama's birth certificate from Kenya." Instead, they had to say, "Are you sure that Obama was born in America? We would like to see proof. Can you provide us with a copy of his birth certificate?" They had to create the impression that they were just a small group of absurdly suspicious people. That charade caused most people to ridicule them as mentally unstable nitwits. And because they were not releasing any information that was truly harmful to Obama, Obama could ignore it.

It is also difficult for a person to be blackmailed if he has secretive information about the blackmailers because the victim can respond, "Go ahead and expose me, and I'll expose what I know about you!"

Blackmail works best when it can be done in secrecy; when the victim is easily intimidated; and when the victim doesn't know much about the blackmailer.

Donald Trump may not have done anything that he can be blackmailed over, and he may have the type of personality that will cause him to fight with anybody who tries to blackmail him.

All political candidates are regularly criticized and insulted by journalists, but I think the Jews are attacking Donald Trump more than they have ever attacked any other candidate. I think the Jews are frightened that if Trump becomes president, they are going to lose control of America's government, and if that happens, they may lose control of other nations, also.

For another example of their desperation to ruin Trump's image, an article at salon.com claims:
"Exit poll date proves it: Trump is the candidate of voters who resent African-Americans and immigrants."

The Jews claim that Trump and his supporters are "racists", but everybody can be described as a "racist". Humans have a strong emotional craving to form groups that fight with one another, just like monkeys and dogs. Everybody considers the people of his particular race, religion, political beliefs, clothing styles, and food habits to be superior to those of other people. And don't forget that the Jews believe that they are the superior race, and that they have been specially chosen by God.

It is deceptive to describe only the supporters of Donald Trump as racist or arrogant. The supporters of Bernie Sanders are just as arrogant, and they think of themselves as superior to the Republicans, the Clinton supporters, and other groups.

Ideally, journalists, teachers, and other people in influential positions would educate people about our animal characteristics, and they would dampen our tendency to behave like packs of wild dogs, but the Jews are doing the exact opposite. They are encouraging people to think of themselves as superior to the Trump supporters. They are encouraging arrogance, hatred, and fights.

An article at gawker.com insults Trump with such remarks as "a fundamentally unstable narcissist", and claims that his doctor prescribed Tenuate Dospan for him from 1982 to 1985. That drug is used as a diet drug, and one of its side effects is that it can interfere with a person's thinking abilities.

That article is trying to give Donald Trump a bad image, but I would say that it gives doctors and diet drugs a bad image. Diet drugs are more evidence that we need to get rid of our free enterprise system so that scientists can focus on something beneficial, such as understanding and maintaining human health, rather than looking for opportunities to exploit fat people, cancer victims, and elderly people.

Another example of how our free enterprise system creates conflicts of interest is in the news right now; namely, air pollution. Certainly you know that research projects have shown that air pollution can harm our health, but some recent studies have shown that it also seems to increase the formation of lentigines (the dark spots that form on our skin as we get older).

The most sensible reaction to lentigines and other health problems caused by air pollution, mercury, lead, and other toxic chemicals is to reduce the pollution, but businesses cannot profit from such activities. Therefore, the scientist who did the research on lentigines said that they were developing chemicals to put into cosmetic creams to reduce the detrimental effects of air pollution. This is as idiotic as the business that is selling bottles of Canadian air to the people in China. The free enterprise system encourages people to exploit and manipulate one another, not look for solutions to our problems.

Children are also exploited by the free enterprise system. Consider the five-year study by New York University that discovered that school children are less obese when they are provided with access to drinking water. When schools do not provide drinking water, the children have a tendency to drink sodas, chocolate milk, and juice. Regardless of why it took them five years to figure that out, rather than provide the children with inexpensive water fountains, the schools were convinced to purchase water stations at about $1000 apiece. Each station has a lever that the children push to dispense water into a disposable plastic cup.

How much longer are we going to tolerate this idiotic free enterprise system that encourages us to exploit one another? As I described in an earlier document, millions of people boast that they can push themselves to do athletic activities, but it would be more useful if we admired people who can push themselves emotionally into experimenting with a better economic system.

We should also admire the people who can push themselves into experimenting with a better government system. I would say that diet drugs are another example of why we need a better government and school system, and why we need to put a different group of people in control of society. Specifically, we need leaders who have an understanding of science, especially genetics.

The people who don't understand genetics are promoting the theory that doctors, therapy, punishments, religion, and drugs can cure the people who are overweight, stupid, sickly, anorexic, dishonest, violent, psychotic, alcoholic, depressed, and retarded. Although our medical technology is capable of solving or reducing some of our medical problems, we are never going to understand or adequately deal with medical disorders until we take genetics into account.

Was Trump being truthful years ago when he claimed to be a friend of the Clintons? Or is he telling us the truth today when he says he never liked them and was only pretending to be their friend in order to use them for political favors? Does Trump really want to build a wall along Mexico? Or did he make that promise only to titillate the Republicans?

It is common for political candidates to make promises that they have no desire to fulfill, and no authority to fulfill. The reason candidates are so deceptive is because they have learned that they can attract more voters with simplistic promises than by providing intelligent, detailed policies. Republican voters, for example, respond favorably to candidates who promise to reduce taxes and government, but if a candidate were to provide a detailed explanation for how he was going to reduce taxes and government, the voters would argue that they don't like some of his decisions. The government employees and businesses that would be affected by his policy would be especially upset with him.

The candidates have learned that it is best for them to be vague and let each voter interpret his simplistic promises in whatever manner they please. The voters do not fire candidates who fail to fulfill promises, so none of the candidates have to be concerned about keeping their promises.

Furthermore, only a few voters - if any! - understand that America's government officials do not have any significant authority. America's Constitution was created by people who were frightened of government, and so they created a government that was very small, and which did not give any official much authority to do anything.

Although our government has grown in size, our government officials still do not have much authority. Therefore, political candidates can safely make promises to create jobs, reduce the size of government, build gigantic walls around the nation, and reduce taxes. None of the government officials, not even the President, has the authority to fulfill those promises, so if any of the voters complain to an official that he has not fulfilled his promises, the official can respond, "I am trying to, but the [liberals]/[conservatives] are blocking my attempts!" And they can use this excuse over and over, decade after decade.

Trump may be aware that it is in his best interest to be vague and make lots of promises. Even if he wants to keep some of his promises, he will not have the authority to do it, so he doesn't have to worry about making unrealistic promises.

A few months ago I wrote that I suspected Trump was running for president merely to help Clinton get elected. Clinton needs help in this election for the same reasons she lost to Obama. Namely, not many voters like her or her political opinions, and, even more important, animals have a natural preference to regard males as leaders, not females. Men want to worship and pamper women, not look to them for leadership. Therefore, the only way Clinton will get elected is if her Republican opponent is even less desirable than she. Since there are more Democrats than Republicans, Trump could get her elected by becoming the Republican candidate, and then, in the months prior to the election, making enough idiotic remarks so that only Republicans vote for him.

However, during the following 5 months since I wrote that speculation, so many Jews have shown so much fear of Trump that I now wonder if he actually wants to be president. Perhaps his original purpose for becoming a candidate was to help Clinton, but after he realized that he actually had a chance of getting elected, he may have decided he would rather be president. However, since there are more Democrats than Republicans, if Trump wants to get elected, he will have to make some promises that appeal to the Democrats. However, he should wait until he becomes the Republican candidate before he starts making promises to Democrats.

Another possible reason that so many Jews are frightened of Trump is because Trump may support only the Jews who have a personality that is similar to his own; specifically, Jews who are interested in wealth. Trump may not have an interest in Israel or Zionism. He may not even have any desire to help Israel cover up their crimes. This would explain why Jews are whining about his low level of support of Israel and his "anti-Semitic" remarks.

It is difficult to understand the motives of Trump and other people who rise to the top in business and government because they are not "ordinary" people. They ended up in unusual positions in life because there is something different about them. It might be easier for you to understand this concept if you consider how it applies to athletes.

The athletes who rise to the top of their particular sport are not "ordinary" people. In addition to having unusually athletic bodies, there is something different about their mind. For example, some may have unusually strong cravings to win, and some may have extremely strong attractions to competitive events, and I have heard a couple of them say they hate losing more than they enjoy winning. Michael Phelps has ADHD, and that disorder apparently caused him to become a misfit in society and spend most of his childhood focused on swimming.

There may be thousands of people who have a body that is just as athletic as the top athletes, but there is a difference between our minds that would prevent us from winning a sports contest. The two primary differences between the minds of successful athletes and the rest of us seem to be:

We have a tendency to assume that people who excel in something are "better" than the rest of us, but in some cases, they simply have different personalities, and some of them may be more accurately described as "mentally defective", especially the people who rise to the top in government and business.

Our top business and government leaders do not seem willing to have an "ordinary" life. They want to be special. They want extreme wealth, fame, admiration, or status. Why are they unable to enjoy life as an "ordinary" person? What is different about their minds? And is that difference something we should admire?

All of us want to be wealthy and famous, but most of us don't care enough about wealth or fame to devote our lives to it. Also, most of us do not want to form friendships according to how we can benefit from the person, and we do not want to lie or commit crimes to achieve wealth or fame.

The successful political candidates have a reputation of saying whatever their supporters want to hear, and of hiding their true opinions. They behave like circus seals who do tricks for people who toss them fish. They are not people that we can trust or look to for guidance.

Trump does not seem to have the personality of a circus seal, but he shows a quality that we often find in top business and government officials; namely, they are more willing than the ordinary people to pretend to be somebody's friend in order to use him for their own benefit. The people who become successful want friends, not enemies.

Women have a natural tendency to select a husband according to his financial situation and social status, thereby resulting in lots of women selecting husbands that they don't have much of an interest in, but both men and women who rise to the top in business and government so frequently form friendships with people they do not like that nobody can be sure if any of those people truly like any of their friends.

All of us have to work with people we don't like, so all of us could be accused of pretending to like people we don't like. Some business executives and salesmen have to deal with hundreds of other executives, government officials, journalists, and customers, so they need an ability to work with people they don't like. However, we should pass judgment on when a person is merely cooperating with a person he doesn't like, and when he is pretending to like a person in order to exploit or abuse him.

For example, when an assembly line worker is pretending to like the person next to him on the assembly line, he is simply getting along with one of his team members. If, however, he was pretending to be his friend in order to sell him some of his used items at a high price, then he would be deceiving the person in order to exploit him, and he should be described as a "con artist".

How does Donald Trump treat people? Is he friendly with people he doesn't like simply to work with them? Or does he become friends with people so that he can abuse, deceive, manipulate, and exploit them?

Voters should take a look at a candidate's life and personality and pass judgment on why that candidate wants to be in a leadership position. Does he truly have an interest in society? Or is he interested only in fame, wealth, or pampering? Does he want to work with us, or does he want to exploit us?

As I've mentioned in other files, very few people have original opinions. Most people's opinions are just a collage of other people's opinions that they picked up during their life. Trump doesn't seem to have any original opinions, either. His opinions about 9/11, terrorism, guns, immigrants, refugees, and other issues seem to be just bits and pieces of opinions that he picked up from Jews and by watching the television news. For example, in this speech, he suggests that Saudi Arabia is responsible for the 9/11 attack, which is propaganda that the Jews are promoting.

If he becomes president, I would expect that somebody in the government or military will eventually let him in on the truth. What will Trump do when he discovers that his Jewish friends are actually liars and criminals who have been manipulating him and his daughter?

Perhaps the reason so many Jews are so frightened of him is that they are worried that when he learns the truth about Jews, he will be disgusted with Jews. Trump says he likes to fight, and he seems to be interested in fame, so he will get a lot more admiration, and have a much more exciting fight, if he helps to defeat Zionism.

Or does Trump already know the truth about the Jews and is only pretending to be naive? In which case, which group of people is Trump fighting for?

Since the voters don't care that candidates lie to them, make worthless promises, and are secretive and evasive, we might as well allow the candidates to be anonymous and wear masks. This would make the elections more amusing. This would also make the elections more popular than the Super Bowl and the Emmy awards. People all over the world would turn on their televisions to find out which candidate was elected, and watch the winner take off his mask and identify himself.

I mentioned that we need leaders who understand genetics so that they don't promote the philosophy that diet drugs are the solution to obesity. Another example of the importance of understanding genetics is the report in February 2016 that claims that the omega-3 fatty acids in fish seems to help protect us against Alzheimer's disease.

Two concepts that medical researchers, doctors, and other people in influential positions ought to understand in regards to health issues is that:


A diet that provides optimum health for one person will not necessarily be optimum for another person. The reason is because we differ slightly in our ability to digest foods, and absorb nutrients. Our bodies also have different abilities to produce the enzymes, proteins, and other chemicals that we need, and to maintain the levels of chemicals in our blood. Furthermore, we differ in our exercise routines, sleeping patterns, and drug use.

Many people claim that the reason we should eat fish is because it has an important omega-3 fatty acid, namely, DHA. However, the human body has the ability to produce DHA, so why do we need to eat fish?

Since each of us is genetically unique, there are some people who can produce DHA better than others. If a person does not have an ability to produce enough DHA, then his health may suffer, and he may improve his health by eating fish. This does not mean that you or I will benefit from eating fish.

Consider an obvious example of this concept; namely, a person whose body cannot produce enough insulin will benefit by injecting himself with insulin, but just because his health improves from insulin injections doesn't mean that you will improve your health with insulin injections.

Now consider a less obvious example of this concept; namely, salt, ie, sodium chloride. How much salt should humans eat each day in order to remain in optimum health? There is no answer to that question because we have different bodies, live in different climates, get different amounts of physical exercise, and perspire to different extents.

Some people believe that we are eating too much salt, but excessive amounts of salt may be beneficial to people who have certain types of medical problems. For example, excessive salt intake causes us to drink more water, and that in turn might help people with certain medical disorders. Perhaps it will help some people to wash out kidney stones before they become large, or rinse chemicals from their blood.

The same may be true of coffee and other diuretics. A "typical" person may not benefit from diuretics, but a person who has certain types of medical disorders might benefit from them.

Furthermore, I would not be surprised if high salt intake would be beneficial to people who are eating certain types of foods. For example, if a person has a diet that is high in oxalic acid, or some toxic chemical, he might benefit by eating a lot of salt or coffee in order to cause him to drink more water, which in turn helps wash the chemicals out of his blood.

The opposite situation is also likely. Specifically, there are undoubtedly some people whose health worsens with large intakes of water, perhaps because their kidneys are not working properly, in which case those particular people would improve their health by reducing their intake of salt and coffee.

When the environment of a species changes, they evolve to fit the changes. For example, if coffee and salt are helping people with medical problems, then those people will have a better chance of survival and reproduction in this modern world now that they have access to unlimited amounts of coffee and salt. This in turn allows them to remain as healthy as everybody else, which allows them to reproduce and pass on their particular defects. After thousands of generations, the people will become so defective that they become dependent upon excessive amounts of salt and coffee.

Another example of this concept is the omega-3 fatty acids. If everybody starts eating fish every week, then the people who do not have the ability to produce enough DHA will be just as healthy as the rest of the population. Instead of becoming sickly, which would reduce their chances of successfully reproducing, they will be as healthy as everybody else, and they will be able to pass on their genetic defects to their children. Eventually the defects will spread through the population, and nobody will be able to produce their own DHA. The human race will become as dependent upon fish for this nutrient as we are dependent upon food for vitamin C.

I am another example of this concept. If I had been provided with thyroid hormones as a teenager, I undoubtedly would have ended up married and with children, and my children would have had a tendency to have thyroid problems, also.

Our ancestors could do whatever they pleased because nature took care of the defective people by killing them or making them suffer, but today we must make decisions on what we want the future generations to be. We must design society according to what we want humans to become, and we must control reproduction to prevent the human race from degrading into sickly, miserable, unhappy, dishonest, irresponsible, antisocial freaks.

Ideally, every generation will become healthier than the previous generation, not more dependent upon coffee, fish, spices, sugar, artificial flavors, vitamin supplements, cosmetic surgery, and medical drugs.

Ideally, each generation would also have better minds. Each generation should be better behaved, enjoy school more, be better able to hold jobs, be more sociable, be better able to form friendships and marriages, be more honest and trustworthy, be more responsible, and be more interested in contributing to and participating in society.

Ideally, people would not need to brush their teeth. Our mouth should be capable of cleaning itself, just like our eyes do. We don't have to brush our eyes with "eyeball paste" several times a day, and don't have to go to eye doctors for routine cleanings and repairs. Our nose should also be able to keep itself clean. And our digestive system should process food into relatively neat, clean packages rather than a stinky paste.

Why do so many people have crooked and defective teeth? Why are so many people suffering from headaches, depression, low self-esteem, backaches, and psychotic cravings for wealth or fame? Why are there so many people willing to lie, cheat, rape, and steal? Why are there so many people who depend upon alcohol, religion, television, or dogs to help them get through life?

The reason there are so many sickly and miserable people is because the genetically defective people have been reproducing for thousands of years, and their genetic disorders are accumulating and spreading throughout the population. If we continue on the path that we are on right now, the human race will degrade into freaks.

Unfortunately, we are not going to be able to make wise decisions about who should reproduce when we allow people to be secretive about themselves, and when we allow people to lie about their characteristics. We must have access to the truth about everybody's medical condition, mental qualities, and behavior. We should maintain a database with information about everybody from the moment they are born.

Incidentally, my experience with taking thyroid hormones during these past few years makes me wonder if doctors can truly determine whether a person has a thyroid problem simply by taking a blood test while a person is sitting in a doctor's office. I suspect we will get a better understanding of this hormone if we take one blood sample when the person is at rest, and another sample while the person is doing some intense physical activity, such as running on a treadmill. We might also get a better understanding of this hormone by checking levels when people become sick.

I suspect that the T3 thyroid hormone is "consumed" in the process of producing energy, in which case our body must be able to increase its production during mental and physical activities, and possibly when fighting diseases. Therefore, by measuring a person's levels of the T3 hormone at different times during the day, we would see how well his body is maintaining his levels.

Some people may produce adequate levels of thyroid hormones while they are resting, but be unable to increase the production adequately when they start doing physical or mental activities, thereby causing them to become tired too quickly. I suspect that that was my problem.

Animals admire whichever animal reaches the top position of their hierarchy, and they reach those top positions by biting, kicking, snarling, and scratching. An animal is impressed by another animal's fighting ability. This is true for both the male and the female animals.

Our political debates are not serious job interviews. Rather, they are analogous to a group of animals that are fighting for dominance except that the political candidates do not bite and scratch one another. Instead, they fight with words and facial expressions.

The audience does not regard the debate as a job interview. They don't analyze the past performance of the candidates, or their proposals. Instead, they regard the debate as a battle with winners and losers. They don't pass judgment on which candidate has the best leadership abilities. Rather, they pass judgment on which candidate won the debate.

Different businesses use different techniques for hiring people, but every business hires people through a process that is more sensible than what we are using to select government officials.

Humans have the intelligence to create a system for selecting government officials that is more sensible than what we are doing right now. All we have to do is find enough people who are tired of our idiotic system and corrupt government officials, and who can push themselves into experimenting with a better system.

We currently admire people who can make a lot of money, climb a mountain, or win an athletic contest, but we would benefit much more if we admired the explorers and pioneers who are capable of facing reality, controlling their emotional cravings, and experimenting with improvements to society.