Be better than "Normal"

The majority of people are considered to be "normal" or "average", regardless of how they behave. For example, the majority of Americans like to drink alcohol but do not like to smoke marijuana; therefore, the drinking of alcohol is considered normal, and the smoking of marijuana is considered abnormal.

For another example, the majority of Americans refuse to discuss the issue of Building 7. Therefore, it is considered normal to ignore Building 7.

Nobody complains when people behave in a "normal" manner, so people are never ridiculed for ignoring Building 7. Instead, a person who discusses Building 7 is reprimanded or insulted.

However, if most people were like me, then most people would be able to calmly discuss the issue of Building 7, and the person who could not discuss it would be considered "abnormal".

Actually, if most people were like me, every nation would be dramatically different from what it is right now. Let me give you a few examples. (I use America in these examples because it is the only nation I have lived in, not because I am "anti-American".)

1) It is normal to manipulate children for money

Thousands of adults make a living by manipulating and sexually titillating children and teenagers in  advertisements, TV shows, and movies.

Some advertisements for children's products are intended for parents, but some advertisements are designed for children. Can you justify ads that are designed to manipulate children?

Some parents spend several hours each month trying to convince their children that they do not need a certain toy, or that they do not need a name brand article of clothing. Why do parents tolerate this abuse of their children?

Imagine the following scenario:

Your doorbell rings, you open the door, and dozens of adults walk into your house without asking your permission. They go into your children's bedroom and begin competing with one another to convince your children to buy a certain product, desire a certain food, play with a certain toy, or ask for a certain name brand article of clothing.

Some of these adults have their hands under your children's clothing and are trying to sexually titillate them.

Now imagine that this group of adults comes back the next day and does it again, and then they come back the day after that, and so on, forever.

Would you put up with that situation? Would you remain calm and try to counteract the manipulation by explaining to your children that they don't really need the toy or name brand article of clothing that they insist they must have?

What is the difference between adults who walk into your hometo manipulate and sexually titillate your children, and adults who come into your homes via magazines and television shows?

Since the effect on the children is nearly the same in both cases, why is one practice acceptable and the other illegal?

Do we have "free enterprise", or "free abuse"?

The manipulation of children is often justified as being part of "free enterprise" or "capitalism". However, whether the manipulation of children is an acceptable part of free enterprise depends on your attitude. I would classify it as a "manipulation" and "abuse" of children, not as a "business practice", or "an advertising policy".

I think that free enterprise should be like a sports game between friends. Specifically, the competition would be intended to push one another into doing a better job. There would be no losers in this competition because if somebody failed, they would just start over or try something different.

The goal of the players in a free enterprise system should be to make a better world, not to hurt one another.

I would describe America's economy an abusive, war-like system where neurotic businessmen fight one another for dominance. Their goal seems to be to destroy their competition and gather as much money and material items as possible, with no regard to the effect on their life or the lives of people around them.

I don't have any children of my own, but I am disappointed that most adults either do nothing about the manipulation of children, or consider it to be an acceptable business practice. Why are so many adults putting up with this abuse? Why are there so few people who want to improve life for themselves and their children?

Why do so few people care about the quality of life? Why are most people concerned only about their quantity of material items?

If the abuse of children was a bit more extreme, it would be slapstick comedy:

The Three Stooges send their daughter to school. She comes home with a General Motors logo painted on her forehead because a General Motors salesman visited the school and convinced many of the children that they like having the logo on their head. The Three Stooges respond by spending an hour talking her into letting them wash it off: "But, honey, the logo really doesn't look good on your forehead. You should let us wash that logo off. Please? How about if we give you a cookie?" The next day the child comes home from school with a United Airlines logo on her arm. The Three Stooges spend another hour talking her into letting them scrub it off.

The people who do nothing to stop this abuse of children are allowing it to continue. And the people who purchase the magazines or watch the television shows that provide this type of advertising are funding this abusive behavior. These people should be accused of being partly responsible for the abuse.

A person is considered to be a "child molester" if he has sexual contact with a child without the child's consent. Why not expand the definition of child molester to include adults who manipulate and sexually titillate children through television, magazines, and movies? And why not consider people who approve, allow, or fund this abuse to be accessories to child molesting? 

With such a definition, we could describe most of our friends and relatives as accessories to child molesters. This in turn might help them to realize that they are partly responsible for the mess this world is in. Maybe it will help them realize that if they become better citizens, the world can become a better place.

2) It is normal to cheat our government

Americans often complain about worthless government programs. Political candidates pander to these people by promising to reduce the waste in government. However, it is very rare for government officials to reduce spending. The reason is because the American people resist every attempt to cut government spending.

For example, as of February 2005, the Navy wants to remove the USS Kennedy from service. It is an old aircraft carrier, and one of two that are not nuclear powered. However, some government officials, businessmen, and citizens in Jacksonville, Florida are pleading with President Bush to keep the aircraft carrier in service, but not because they believe we need the ship. Rather, they complain that if the Navy gets rid of the ship, it will put a lot of people out of work and reduce the profits of some businesses.

Maintaining an old ship simply because it allows some people to make money is selfish. I can't help but wonder how ridiculous this situation would have to get before people realized that America is a victim of the selfish qualities of the American people. What if the people in Jacksonville, Florida were demanding that the U.S. Navy maintain some of its wooden ships that were built in 1860? How about if they were demanding that the Army maintain the Flintlock rifles from 1776?

The American government is like a retarded girl, and lots of people are raping her, including the "innocent" American citizens. For example, the military is frequently pushed into accepting weapon systems they do not want, taking larger quantities of weapons than they want, and maintaining equipment that they do not want.

A lot of the people who are cheating our government are wealthy Republicans, but they have the audacity to complain that liberals are responsible for worthless government programs. Why don't we consider everybody who abuses the government to be committing a crime, including Republicans? Why are some of these people considered to be "clever businessmen"?

I mentioned in Denial of the Obvious that there are two groups of people who are releasing unwanted pets into our cities, and that the outcome is identical in both cases. How is one person better than the other when they produce identical results? It would be easier to describe both groups of people as being irresponsible and disgusting.

Now consider how this applies to the people in Jacksonville, Florida.

Imagine one group of people in Jacksonville, Florida breaking into military bases every year and stealing millions of dollars worth of equipment.

 

Another group pressures the military into giving them millions of dollars each year to maintain an old ship the Navy does not want.

Assume the effect on taxpayers is the same in both cases. Specifically, millions of dollars are taken from taxpayers each year, but nothing of benefit is given to the nation in return.

Most people would say the group that takes the money by burglary is committing a crime, whereas the group that maintains a worthless ship would be praised as "concerned citizens who care about their community and want to provide people with jobs."

Since the effect on the nation is identical in both cases, why not accuse both groups of committing a crime?

There have been times when teenage boys convinced a mentally retarded girl into letting them have sex. If the people in Jacksonville, Florida were pressuring the government into letting them have sex with the government secretaries, most people would consider them to be committing a crime.

What difference does it make if the people in Jacksonville are manipulating the government into giving them tax money, or if they are manipulating the government into giving them sex? In both cases some people are selfishly abusing their own government.

How can a nation take care of itself when so many of its citizens have such selfish attitudes, and so many other citizens ignore the selfish behavior?

Government policies tell us about the people

The activities of a government are an indication of the type of people in that society. When we find a government creating worthless or self-destructive policies, it is a sign that the nation has a lot of selfish people who think only of their short-term gain. And it is a sign that a lot of people don't care about this selfish behavior, or who cannot grasp the significance of it.

A nation of truly respectable people would give themselves government policies that are supported by intelligent reasoning. And they would stand up to the abuse of their government because they would understand that ignoring corruption and selfish behavior is making society worse for everybody.

If America consisted of people who were as moral and respectable as they claim to be, they would discuss the value of a government program, and they would get rid of the programs that have little or no benefit to society. They would not demand we hold on to a government program simply because some people make profit from it. They would think of the long-term benefit to society, not the short-term financial gain of a few people.

There are lots of people in every nation abusing their government on a routine basis. Since these people are willing to cheat their own nation, can we expect them to treat their friends and relatives with decency? Can we expect them to treat foreign nations with decency? With so many selfish people in the world, is it really surprising that the world is full of abuse and fighting?

Respectable people would not fear a job loss

Getting rid of a government program will cause jobs to disappear, but if everybody was as respectable as they claim to be, other jobs would be created. For example, our cities are ugly; electric power lines are knocked down whenever the wind blows; and our train system is pathetic. When the Navy gets rid of an old ship, the people who lose their job could do something more useful, such as working on our cities and trains.

Unfortunately, our government, school system, and businesses do virtually nothing to help people find new jobs. There are a few businesses that help people find jobs, but some of them are hurting society because they are as immoral as the rest of the population. For example, some of them encourage people to exaggerate their abilities and experience on their resumes. Exaggerating is virtually the same as lying or deceiving.

Encouraging people to exaggerate their skills can help an employment company make commissions, but in the long run it hurts society because people react to the exaggerations by becoming suspicious of résumés and references. There are already many people who no longer consider resumes and references to be of much value. Lies and deception hurt a society in the long run, but how many people care?

3) It is normal to ignore the weather

Every few years an American city experiences unusual weather, such as unusually heavy rainstorms, or unusually strong winds, or unusually heavy snowfalls. The result is flooding, broken power lines, damaged houses, and sometimes death.

Millions of Americans complain about the terrible weather, but the weather is not terrible. The universe is a wonderful place.

Rain and snow cause trouble in America simply because most people ignore the issue when we design cities. Actually, we do not design our cities. Rather, buildings and roads are built haphazardly and scattered about in a nearly random manner.

For example, a small town near me called La Conchita was built next to very large hills of dirt. Geologists warned people that the dirt will slide onto the houses if it became saturated with water. As predicted, in 1995 an unusually heavy rainstorm saturated the area, and some of the dirt slid down the hill and crushed some of the houses.

Ten years later, in 2005, another heavy rainstorm caused dirt to slide down onto more houses, and this time 10 people were killed. How many times does this have to occur before the American people design cities to deal with the weather?

It seems that every few months there is some city in America that suffers from a flood, power lines that are blown down, or cars that are trapped in ice or snow. I would expect this behavior to be part of a Three Stooges movie, not real life. But in America, it has become "normal".

How ridiculous does this situation have to get before you realize that the weather is causing trouble for us only because of the irresponsibility of the people? How about if a construction company built an entire neighborhood during warm, sunny weather, and because the weather was so wonderful, they did not put roofs on the houses so that the people could enjoy the sunshine while they were inside the house?

The people who do not plan for the weather could be accused of being partly responsible for the disasters that occur.

4) The abuse of other races

America has always had the attitude that it is acceptable to use other races as source of labor. When this nation was founded, almost one third of the Southern states were African slaves, and today almost one third of the entire nation are former African slaves and their modern replacements, the Mexicans, Chinese, Indians, Costa Ricans, etc.

These different races of people were brought into America to serve as human donkeys; they were not invited to become a part of our society. When they are finished working, they are expected to go to their section of the city.

This attitude did not work for the white people in South Africa, and there is no reason to believe it's going to work for the white Americans. Eventually America will be dominated by their human donkeys. A nation that is too lazy to grow their own food, clean up their own messes, and raise their own children will eventually be taken over by their slaves.

However, there is no serious discussion of this issue. Instead, there are only angry accusations that the Mexicans are forcing themselves on us. I often hear demands from white Americans that we must close our borders. To make the Mexicans look even worse, they are described as "illegal". Supposedly the illegal Mexicans are forcing us to give them jobs and provide them with welfare and Social Security.

There are so many Americans accusing the illegal Mexicans of forcing themselves on us that it is considered "normal" to criticize the illegal Mexicans, but I would say this behavior is "disgusting".

How ridiculous does this situation have to become before you complain about the attitudes of your fellow Americans? How about this: since some American men do not want to have sex with their wives, what if they were paying Mexican men to do it, and what if millions of American citizens and some American politicians were complaining that we must close the border to Mexico to stop the Mexicans from getting our women pregnant? And what if a woman died during the sex, and taxpayers spent a lot of money on a trial to determine if the death was due to the great sex or because the Mexican lost his temper?

That may seem like an unrealistic example, but do you recall the couple in Massachusetts who hired Louise Woodward, a teenage girl from Britain, to take care of their baby? When the baby died, Woodward was arrested for killing the baby. Not many people asked:

"Why are wealthy Americans hiring teenagers from Britain to raise their children? And why are so many women in California hiring Mexicans to raise their children? With all the technology and material wealth we have today, why can't women find the time to raise their own children? Is life improving in America? Or getting worse?"

How ridiculous does this situation have to get before you wonder if something is wrong with the American people? What if every teenage girl in Britain was in America to raise American children? What if the teenage boys in Britain were complaining that the Americans took all their girls?

When robots become more advanced, will American women use robots to take care of their children? If so, and if a baby dies, should she be able to sue the manufacturer of the robot?

Should American mothers replace their British and Mexican servants with robots?

What would Americans have to do before you ask, "What is wrong with the American people?"

Condemning "conspiracies" without evidence is a crime

People who dismiss accusations of crime as "conspiracy theories", but who do not provide supporting evidence for their accusation, are also accessories to the crime. They allow the crimes to continue because they are suppressing attempts to expose the crime.

If you watched the video that has excerpts of a Kay Griggs interview (at HugeQuestions.com), you may recall that she talked to an American soldier who claims to have been sexually abused (raped?) by Henry Kissinger during the Vietnam war.

If the first man to have been abused by Kissinger had complained about it, and if other people in the US military had supported him, Kissinger may never have abused any more soldiers.

So why did Kissinger continue to abuse soldiers? Did all the soldiers keep quiet about the abuse? Probably not, or else we would not even know about it.

It is more likely that some or all of the soldiers complained about the abuse, but most people dismissed it as a stupid conspiracy theory. If Kissinger had deliberately selected men who were already regarded as mentally unstable, stupid, and/or suffering from an alcohol or drug problem, then people would be even more likely to dismiss their accusations.

However, by dismissing the accusations, they allow the crime to continue. They could be said to be partly responsible for all the subsequent abuse.

In Denial of the Obvious, I mentioned that some people ignored Al Capone on the grounds that he was only hurting the crummy people of society. People dismiss rape accusations using that same argument. However, we hurt everybody when we ignore crimes.

What was Kissinger thinking?

What would make Kissinger think that he could get away with sexually abusing American soldiers? Would you have believed he could get away with it?

Perhaps Kissinger saw other government officials get away with abuse. Or perhaps he was abused when he was young, and he noticed that the majority of people turn their heads and pretend not to see.

If Kissinger's attitude came from noticing that other people commit crimes without getting in trouble, he would be an example of how we encourage crime when we ignore it.

Ignoring crime also alters attitudes that people have towards one another. For example, some victims of Al Capone, Henry Kissinger, or the September 11 attack, might develop bad attitudes towards government and people. They might decide that the accusations are correct that the common people are "useless eaters". Some of them might decide to join the criminals since none of the "useless eaters" care about making a better world.

Hundreds of firemen were killed when the towers were demolished. Many of the firemen who survived may still not realize that the towers were blown up with explosives since this information is not spreading very quickly. However, some of the firemen certainly know about the scam, but have chosen to remain silent. Why not tell those silent firemen that they are accessories to the murder of their friends?

Or did those silent firemen already try to talk about this issue, but were ridiculed as "conspiracy nuts"? Is it possible that some of the firemen have become so disgusted by their fellow citizens that they are now referring to people as "useless eaters"?

It is bad enough that the world has a lot of crime, but when the victims are psychologically attacked by their own friends and relatives as "conspiracy nuts" when they talk about the crime, then they become victims a second time. The world is not going to improve when millions of people are ridiculing thousand of us as "conspiracy nuts", and the conspiracy nuts ridicule the others as "useless eaters" and "mindless masses".

If Nazis were bad, why are your friends good?

Many Americans often insult the Nazis for giving blind obedience to Hitler; the French for giving obedience to Napoleon; and the Iraqis for giving obedience to Saddam Hussein. But how are your own friends and relatives behaving any better when they ignore corruption and give blind obedience to the American government?

Ignoring corruption allows it to continue, and ridiculing people who complain about corruption is breaking the bonds of friendship between us.

I am not implying that everybody who complains about corruption is correct. Often an event that one person claims is a crime or a rape is only a crime or a rape to the particular person who complained about it. The point I'm trying to make is that we should not ridicule people who make these accusations. Rather, we should investigate.

If every American was told that he must come forward with whatever information he knows about 9-11 or be considered an accessory to the crime, it might bring so much information that the crime could be solved. But since the government is involved in the crime, why would they want the citizens to talk openly about it? Corrupt governments depend on citizens who are apathetic, ignorant, stupid, and frightened.

If the majority of people were responsible, educated, and capable of facing reality, governments and businesses would have a difficult time getting away with even trivial crimes.

This concept also leads us to: extreme levels of crime and corruption in a society are a sign that the society has an enormous number of irresponsible, apathetic, ignorant, stupid, and/or frightened citizens. The nations with high crime levels should not be boasting about their nation. Rather, they should be asking themselves what is wrong with the people of their nation.

One of the reasons I produced my book is that I found it very difficult to explain the September 11 attack with words alone. I assumed that a book with color photos and diagrams would help people understand this issue. But I discovered that my book helps only the small number of people who are willing to face problems.

The majority of people have no desire to learn about the corruption in our world. It does not matter how many books or videos are created to explain this issue. Most people ignore the issue simply because they don't want to deal with corruption. Most people want to play, not face problems.

I do not mind if a person excuses himself from fighting corruption. I also realize that some people are mentally ill and will spend their entire lives in a fantasy world. However, the people who cannot deal with life's problems should not be telling us how to live our lives.

People who want to ignore corruption should keep quiet, not tell us who our president should be, or pass judgment on which nation deserves a bombing, or ridicule the "conspiracy theories".

Building 7 is a valuable lesson

When I first heard that the Apollo moon landing was a hoax, I dismissed it the grounds that if Apollo was truly a hoax, people would complain about it. Since almost none of our professors, engineers, or scientists are complaining that Apollo is a hoax, doesn't that prove that men really did walk on the moon?

It was not until I observed the reaction of people to the collapse of Building 7 that I understood why these scams are never publicly exposed. Namely, most people hide from crime.

As an example of how ridiculous this situation can be, one of my brother's neighbors is a psychology professor. Several months ago I asked him if he saw my book or video, and he said he thinks his wife may have looked at my video, but he is not certain.

This college professor has access to my book and video for free, so he cannot complain about the price. But he refuses to look at it, and he is so upset by the subject that he does not want to know if his wife looked at it. How is the nation going to get better when professors behave like frightened children?

Many university students may be thinking to themselves:

"How could 9-11 or the Apollo moon landing possibly be a scam? Our professors never said anything about it. Certainly our physics professors would be able to see through the deception!"

The "common citizens" are regarded as innocent angels, but their refusal to face reality is allowing phenomenal corruption, wars, and chaos. The majority of people are the world's biggest enemies.

Larry Silverstein provides valuable lessons

The people who demolished Building 7 inadvertently gave the human race a very important lesson on why this world is so messed up. Even if Larry Silverstein was not involved in the demolition of the building, his remark about "pull it" on television is a good lesson on the ease at which entire nations can be manipulated.

There is a lot we can learn from Larry Silverstein. I think he will be remembered as one of the world's greatest experts in deception and manipulation. He makes Al Capone look like a dumb criminal.

The reaction of people to Building 7 should be used as evidence that the majority of people refuse to be responsible.

Most people cannot cope with life today

In 10,000 B.C. the primary problems people had to deal with was finding food and shelter. Today we have to deal with issues that never existed before, such as organized crime, blackmail, alcohol, money, credit cards, wars, abortion, welfare, different races of people, and television. Unfortunately, enormous numbers of people who might have survived quite well in 10,000 B.C. are having trouble coping with the problems in our era.

Why are we allowing these frightened, incompetent people to select our government leaders, authorize bombings of other nations, and tell you and I how to live our lives?