people are genetically superior
One of the reasons that governments are
failing to solve our social problems is because most people are
resisting the evidence that human behavior is due to genetics. The
environment influences us, but our genetic design
our mind and body determines our intellectual,
emotional, and physical abilities.
I think that most people are capable of understanding that human
behavior is controlled by genetics, but they resist the concepts
because they don't like the conclusion that it brings us to. That
conclusion is that people are not equal; that some
of us are genetically superior.
When we believe that the human mind is like a piece of clay that is
shaped by the environment, then everybody is equal to one another.
Nobody is inferior. Furthermore, whatever problems we discover in
are curable through environmental changes.
For example, with this philosophy, a person who commits a crime is not
inferior to the honest people; rather, he is merely the victim of a bad
environment, and he can be cured of his criminal behavior with therapy
or punishments. Likewise, a person who has a bizarre personality is not
inferior to other people; rather, he is a victim of bullying, bad
parenting, discrimination, or some other environmental issue, and he
can be cured of his problem with therapy, pity, or punishments.
By comparison, when we believe that human behavior is determined by
genetics, we come to conclusions that we
do not like. We come to the same type
of conclusions about humans that farmers have
in regards to their animals. For example, when a farmer discovers that
a pig is antisocial, he regards that pig as having a genetically
inferior brain, and he will isolate that pig or euthanize it.
Most people have enough intelligence to understand that animal behavior
is genetic, and therefore, they have enough intelligence to realize
that human behavior is also genetic. However, they don't have the
emotional ability to accept this concept,
so they react by ignoring it
and convincing themselves that humans follow different rules than
It doesn't do a person any good to have a lot of intelligence if his
emotional characteristics cause him to disregard reality and believe
You can see the same concept in regards to the 9/11 attack. Most adults
have enough intelligence to realize that Building 7 and the two World
Trade Center towers were demolished with explosives. A person does not
need much scientific or engineering knowledge in order to realize that
those buildings did not "fall down" because of fire. However, not many
people have the emotional ability to deal with the
conclusion that the
evidence brings us to; namely, that some group of people put explosives
in those buildings, murdered thousands of people, and deceived us into
believing that we were attacked by Muslims.
This concept is especially obvious with parents. Many parents have the
intelligence to realize that one of their children is psychotic,
violent, or retarded, but they don't want to face that unpleasant
conclusion so they tell themselves that their child is merely slower at
learning, or "different", or "special".
Donald Trump face reality?
people suspect that Donald Trump's son, Baron, is autistic. There are
only a few seconds of video of his son, and I agree that it appears
that something is wrong with his mind, but his odd behavior could also
be due to being tired or bored.
Some people have responded that
it is none of our business if his son is autistic. Most people have the
attitude that it is acceptable to be secretive and deceptive about
I pointed out in other documents that animals
and humans are naturally deceptive. We are constantly trying to impress
one another. Most people are frightened that other people will learn
the truth about them. We want to hide our school records, job
performance reviews, medical records, and other information. When
somebody tries to learn the truth about somebody else, he is likely to
be reprimanded with an expression such as, "It's none of your business!"
can guarantee that Baron Trump has mental and physical disorders. The
reason is simply because it makes no sense to say that there is such a
thing as a "perfect" human. I don't know what Baron Trump's problems
are, but I can guarantee that he has flaws. Although we have different
ideas on what a "flaw" is, everybody should be able to find some flaws
in his body and mind. Anybody who believes that he is perfect is
stupid, ignorant, and/or too emotionally defective to look critically
Donald and Melinia Trump are not stupid or ignorant,
so if they cannot admit that their son has problems, it is sign that
they have trouble looking critically at their children and facing
reality. Likewise, the people on the Internet who are reacting with
anger to the speculation that he is autistic, and who are insisting
that he is a normal child, are also showing signs of an inability to
face reality. They know as little about Baron as I do, so it is
ridiculous for them to believe that they are experts on Baron's mind.
inability of people to consider the possibility that Baron Trump has
mental problems is not something to ignore. If Trump and his supporters
cannot consider the possibility that his son is mentally ill, that is a
sign that they are ignoring reality and living in a fantasy. This is a
problem because Trump is working with Jews and homosexuals. If he has
trouble with reality, will he be able to consider the possibility that
he is being manipulated by his "friends"?
For example, as of 23 January 2017, Trump supports moving the US embassy
to Jerusalem, but did he
develop that policy? Or is he being manipulated by his Jewish "friends"?
currently allow government officials to do whatever they please without
any explanation, and without being held accountable for their actions.
I suggest that we create a government in which the officials are
required to write a document that explains their decisions, and post it
on the Internet for everybody to see.
If Donald Trump had to follow
that rule, then he would have to post an explanation for why he
believes we should move the US embassy to Jerusalem. He would have to
give us an estimate on how much money we will have to spend to move the
embassy, and what he believes the benefits and disadvantages will be to
both our nation and the world. How exactly are we
going to benefit by spending money to move the embassy?
By requiring him to post that
type of explanation, we would be able to pass judgment on whether he is
making intelligent decisions. If we agree to let him move the embassy,
we would then observe the results and hold him accountable for
For example, if the embassy is moved within its budget, and the
benefits are what he predicted, then he will get credit
for creating a beneficial
policy. However, if it turns out that moving the embassy is much more
expensive than he predicted, or if we come to the conclusion that is
causing more trouble for our nation and/or the world, he will have a failed
policy recorded in his job history.
also propose that a government in which we are continuously
replacing the officials who fail the most often, and that we will
provide our nation with a government that is much more productive and
successful. We will provide ourselves with government officials who
give more accurate estimates to the cost of
projects, and who can more accurately predict the advantages
and disadvantages to a project.
leaders should be able to face
reality and be honest
which emotional traits we need for leaders is a personal opinion, but I
suggest we restrict leadership to people who have the emotional
ability to accept reality, be honest with us, be able to look
critically at themselves, and accept the evidence that human behavior
This will provide us with leaders who can acknowledge that people
are not equal to one
will provide us with leaders who can acknowledge that the people who
more honest are genetically superior
to the people who are more likely
to steal, lie, cheat, manipulate, and murder; that the people who are
able to work in a team are genetically superior to
the people who have
trouble cooperating with other people; that the parents who can admit
that their child has mental problems are genetically superior to the
parents who refuse to acknowledge the evidence.
The Declaration of Independence claims that "all men are created
equal", but I propose a government that promotes the philosophy that
not equal; that some people are genetically
To complicate the issue, nobody is superior in every quality. Some
people are superior in one quality but average in another, and below
average in another.
The United States promotes the concept that everybody is qualified to
president, but we should promote the concept that everybody be given an
opportunity to show us his talents,
but leadership is restricted to the
people who show evidence of having genetically
superior brains in
regards to the qualities we want for the particular job.
promote an unrealistic view of humans
One of the concepts I want to emphasize
in this series of articles is that governments and businesses have
significantly different attitudes towards people. Governments practice
the theory that all people are equal, and that we can fix the misfits
with counseling, rewards, and punishments. By comparison, businesses,
and most other organizations practice a philosophy that people have
different characteristics, and they evict the misfits.
Another way to look at this issue is that businesses follow the same
philosophy as the people who are creating "guide
dogs" to be companions for blind and disabled people. Some of the
people who train guide dogs promote religious nonsense, but
they practice genetics. Specifically, they
carefully analyze the mental
and physical characteristics of the dogs, and they evict
the dogs that
don't have the qualities that they want.
They do not practice the
belief that all dogs are equal, or that they can cure a badly behaved
dog with punishments or rewards. They practice the philosophy that a
dog's behavior is genetic,
and it cannot be changed. They believe that unless
a dog has the appropriate genetic characteristics, they cannot train it
to be a guide dog.
All governments have been failing consistently to reduce corruption,
graffiti, drug abuse, unemployment, littering, divorce, loneliness,
crime networks, homelessness, illegal immigrants, and other social
problems. I think the reason is rather obvious; namely, because they
are basing their theories on an unrealistic view of humans. I will now
give a few examples.
are some neighborhoods filthy?
The neighborhoods that we describe as
suffering from "poverty" have much more litter than other
neighborhoods, and their buildings and yards are not maintained as
well. All nations today are promoting the theory that the reason those
neighborhoods are filthy is because the people don't have enough money
to properly maintain their neighborhood. The people who believe in this
theory encourage us to feel sorry for the people in those
neighborhoods, donate money to them, or volunteer to clean their houses
However, it doesn't make any sense to claim that filthy neighborhoods
are filthy because the residents do not have enough money to be neat.
We do not need money in order to be neat. Children are not charged a
fee for picking up their toys or clothing, and adults do have have to
pay a fee to put their trash into a public trash can.
Actually, in some cases, it is less expensive to be
neat. For example, spraying graffiti requires spending money on paint,
so the people who do not spray graffiti
will save money.
Many of the people in the filthy neighborhoods do not have jobs, and
that provides them with a tremendous amount of leisure time every day.
They could easily spend a few minutes picking up their litter, and
doing some gardening in their yards, and making their neighborhoods
more attractive. However, they spend less time
cleaning up after themselves and doing gardening than the people in the
neighborhoods who have full-time jobs.
It does not require much time or effort to keep your home neat. If you
need proof, just watch some typical people for a few weeks and keep
track of the amount of time they spend cleaning up after themselves.
Aside from the OCD people, most of us spend less than a few
hours a week on cleaning. Our homes are not clean enough for
surgical operations, but they are adequate.
Ordinary people do not spend much time cleaning up after themselves,
and if we were to observe the people in the filthy neighborhoods, we
would discover that they spend less time cleaning
than the typical people, even though they have much more
Furthermore, a close observation of the people in the filthy
neighborhoods would show us that they are creating
most of the mess in their homes and yards. For example, they frequently
discard clothing on the floor rather than put it where it belongs, and
they often leave dirty dishes scattered around their house and kitchen
rather than clean them. They also allow their children to abandon toys
throughout the house and yard.
Why do the people who are suffering from poverty spend less time
cleaning up after themselves? Why do they discard their clothing on the
floor and leave dirty dishes scattered around the house? Does "poverty"
have the ability to force a neat, clean person to behave like a slob?
No; poverty cannot cause a neat person to become a
The reason the poor neighborhoods are filthy is because they are
dominated by people with mental and/or physical characteristics that
prevent them from being as neat as the rest of us. For example, some of
them are suffering from physical disorders, such as arthritis or
obesity, that make it difficult for them to do physical work, and some
have mental characteristics that result in them preferring to spend
their time watching television, getting drunk, playing with their
children, or playing video games.
Litter and filth has nothing to do with
money. If a person is messy, it is because his mind made the decision
to be messy. For some examples:
people have chosen to
When people are in a theater to listen to music or watch a movie, some
people will leave litter where they are sitting, whereas others carry
their litter to the trash cans.
The people who leave litter in a theater are not
necessarily suffering from poverty. Actually, the people who go to the
expensive symphonies have above average
incomes and educations. Those people might not make a mess in their
home, but they have no inhibitions about leaving a mess in public
buildings and parks.
• Some people spit, discard chewing gum, or blow their snot on
sidewalks, but they are not necessarily suffering from poverty.
Some people discard trash out of the window of their automobile, and
some people dump their ashtrays in parking lots. The people who create
such litter are not suffering from
poverty. Actually, they are wealthy enough to own an automobile.
When people take a trip on an airplane, some people leave trash in seat
pockets or floor, even though the airline employees provide a free
trash removal service. The people who create such litter are not
necessarily suffering from poverty. Actually, they are wealthy enough
to fly on an airplane.
• A British television program about some
of the people in the cleaning businesses shows that the people who
attend the horse races create a large amount of litter. However, those
sloppy people are not suffering from poverty; actually, many of them
have above average incomes. Furthermore, the supervisor of the cleaning
that women's bathrooms are messier than men's bathrooms, but that is
not because more women are suffering from poverty than men.
do not leave litter in theaters, make a mess in a bathroom, discard
clothing on the floor, or toss trash in a river because they are
suffering from "poverty". The people who make a mess are doing so
because their mind made the decision to do so. We don't know enough
about the human mind to determine exactly why a particular person is
messy, but I would say that the messy people are genetically
to the neater people in whatever characteristic influences our desire
to be neat.
of the messy people have some genetic qualities that are
better-than-average, but there is something inferior about them that
causes them to be messy.
If the people who are training
guide dogs noticed that one of their dogs was messy, they
would not feel sorry for the dog and assume that it was suffering from
poverty. They would assume the dog is suffering from some type of
mental disorder, and they would evict it from the program. If we were
to follow the same philosophy with people, then the people who make a
mess in the city would be restricted to certain neighborhoods, or
evicted from the city, and the end result would be that the rest of the
city would be neat and clean.
be fair, some people are messy because of ignorance. For example, a lot
of people are ignorant about how our sewage system works, and
this results in people who do not realize that they should
pour oils and fats down the kitchen drain, and that they should not
flush certain items down the toilet. For example, I did not realize
that putting fat
in a kitchen drain would cause problems until I clogged a drain by
doing it, and I have met other people who did not realize this, so
there must be a lot of other people who also grew up without learning
I had clogged the drain, I recalled memories of our mother telling us
to put grease into the trash instead of the sink. However, she
never explained why. As with most people, my mother will follow rules
even if she is not provided with a reason, and even if she does not
understand the reason. I, on the other hand, have a tendency to ignore
something if I don't understand its purpose. This characteristic
sometimes causes problems for me, but I suppose it is the reason I
am willing to explore life.
I sometimes have to remind myself
that many of the established procedures have become established for a
very good reason, and I should not disregard them simply because I
don't understand them.
One of the reasons that people with my
type of personality tend to disregard established procedures that don't
make sense to us is because a lot of our established procedures are idiotic.
For example, do we really need to pray to God before we go to sleep or
eat dinner? When people with my personality grow up in a society that
is following a lot of idiotic procedures, we get into the habit of
disregarding procedures they don't make sense to us, but in some
cases they don't make sense to us because we are ignorant of something,
or too dumb to understand it.
This issue is similar to what I mentioned in a previous document in
which I pointed out that we put unnecessary warning messages
on products, such as a warning that coffee is hot.
The excessive warning messages are causing people to disregard the
you can imagine the dangers facing an animal or prehistoric human, you
can understand why the people who had a tendency to mindlessly follow
established procedures had a greater chance of survival than the people
who wandered off on their own path. There is a very good reason as to
why people follow one another like sheep, and the reason is because
people with that characteristic had a significantly greater survival
However, in this modern world, children are being raised in a society
that has a lot of idiotic
warnings and customs, and this can cause children to get into the habit
of disregarding the warnings and customs. It would be better if we were
to make all of our warnings and customs more sensible.
Getting back to the issue of messy people, the video I gave a link to
one, shows that Britain has to regularly clean deposits of fats from
their sewer system, and I suppose that means that other countries must
also waste resources on the cleaning of fat from
the sewer systems. How much labor and resources are being wasted on
A lot of people do not realize that they should
not dump fat down their kitchen drain. As a result, we can reduce that
particular problem by changing our school curriculum so that children
are better prepared for society. Children should be taught how to
properly use and maintain drains, toilets, phones, computers, and other
devices. In such a case, every adult would
realize that we should not put fat in the sewer, and we should not
flush certain items down the toilet.
Unfortunately, although a
better educated public would reduce the problem of clogged sewers, we
would discover that some people continue to dump fat and trash in the
sewer, and they do it for the same reason that they discard trash on
the streets and in the rivers. Specifically, because they want to do
they please rather than follow the rules.
After I clogged a
sewer, I never again put fat or oil down any drain. However, there are
some people who will continue to do this even after they have clogged
In order to significantly reduce
litter and clogged sewers, we must face the fact that people are
genetically unique, and that some people are going to be messy,
irresponsible, dishonest, and destructive regardless of their
education. We must face the fact that the reason that they
behave in a detrimental manner is because they want to,
not because of
poverty, ignorance, or the devil. We have to evict
those people from
our cities, or restrict them to special
natural gas "clean burning"?
Incidentally, in addition to
schools teaching children about our sewage system, schools should also
provide better information about the dangers of natural gas.
a free enterprise system, the businesses that produce natural gas have
a tendency to deceive us into believing that natural gas is "clean
When I was a child, I saw so many advertisements and articles
about how natural gas is clean burning that I assumed that it was
completely into carbon dioxide and water. As a result, I was under the
impression that when the kitchen is cold, we can heat the kitchen
quickly simply by turning on the oven, opening the oven door, and
letting the natural gas flames heat the kitchen.
years ago I rented a room in my house to a woman who needed a place for
a few months, and one winter evening she asked me to turn on the
natural gas fireplace to warm the room up, and because, like all of us,
she enjoys a fireplace. It used artificial logs, so I lit the fire and
shut the vent to heat the room up faster.
After a few minutes
she sensed that the vent was shut, and she asked me about it, and I
told her that I shut the vent in order to heat the room faster. She
became hysterical that we would die, and demanded that I open the vent.
She had grown up in Sweden, so I was thinking that maybe she grew up
with wood-burning fireplaces and was unfamiliar with how clean natural
I told her that natural gas burns clean, so all it
produces is carbon
dioxide and water vapor, but she demanded that I open the vent. So I
opened the vent, and the next day I called the natural gas company and
asked them if it is really is necessary for us to open the vent. The
gas company told me that we must keep the vent open.
am not the only person who was fooled by the gas companies into
believing that natural gas is clean burning. Now that the Internet
exists, I have noticed people advising one another to stop trying
to heat a room with a natural gas oven or fireplace. In this
article about hoarding, the photo at the top of the article shows a
child heating his hands with the oven in his messy kitchen. I used to
do that sometimes, also.
turns out that the natural gas companies are deceiving us
when they say
natural gas is clean burning. Apparently, when natural gas is burned,
it produces some carbon monoxide. How much carbon monoxide is produced
by the blue flames of a typical stove? Is it enough
for us to worry
about? How much is produced by the yellow flames of
a natural gas
burn candles in their home, and some burn incense,
and some smoke
tobacco, marijuana, or other
materials. Has anybody measured the amount
of carbon monoxide that those activities create? How do candles compare
to stoves in the production of carbon monoxide?
What about the production of carbon dioxide? How
high does that have to be before we need to worry about it?
In a free
enterprise system, businesses have a tendency to exploit us.
information that businesses provide to us is more intelligent and
organized than the information that governments provide, but because of
competition, businesses don't want to be honest. They want to bias
everything in their favor. This results in them providing us with a
distorted view of their products, and a distorted view of their
In a free enterprise system, we will get only the
products and the information that we are willing to purchase. A lot of
people are willing to purchase information about Hollywood celebrities,
sports events, and automobiles, and so there are lots of paper
magazines, television programs, and Internet sites that provide us with
a variety of details on those issues. If people were interested in
understanding the world they live in, there would be businesses
providing us with information about the carbon monoxide production of
candles, about the silverfish and other mysterious creatures that are
living in our homes, and about the poisonous plants and animals that
live in our neighborhoods.
Businesses are deceiving us on a
regular basis in order to promote themselves and their products, and
many of their products and services should be described as worthless.
We are not going to solve
this problem by passing more laws or by punishing business executives.
Solving this problem is going to require experimenting with significant
our culture. For example, we should change our economic system so that
businesses are competing to improve society. It is
idiotic to put
businesses into competition to make money.
people are a significant problem to modern society
prehistoric times, it made no difference if people were sloppy because
they were nomadic, and all of their trash was biodegradable. Humans
never developed any inhibitions about littering or tossing trash into
Today, however, a lot of our trash requires millions of
years to degrade, and some of it is poisonous, radioactive, or
dangerous. Today sloppy people are a significant problem because they
require other people to clean up after them, and that is one of the
reasons that modern nations want to bring in refugees, idiots, and
uneducated people from foreign nations to serve as a peasant class.
significance of littering and sloppiness might be easier to understand
if you imagine if we were to create three, completely new cities that
are identical in all respects, except that we put only messy people in
one city, neat people in the second city, and OCD people in the third
city. Initially all three cities would have identical buildings, roads,
schools, and parks, but after a few months the cities would become
visually different, and they would sound
• The messy people
city with the messy people would become increasingly filthy, and the
filth would eventually reach such a level that the city government
would have to hire peasants to clean up their endless production of
litter, spit, snot, and chewing gum. They would likely import dumb and
• The OCD people
That peasant class would have a significant and
detrimental effect on the social environment. If the peasants were of
different races, it would cause the city to have a different visual
appearance simply because the people are a mixture of races, and if the
peasants were also speaking different languages, the city would sound
different because of the different languages and music. If the peasants
wore different clothing styles, and had different recreational
activities, and had different holiday celebrations, they would further
change the visual appearance and sounds of the city.
The city with
the OCD people would be the cleanest of the cities, and they would not
need any peasants to do cleaning, but their city
would suffer in other ways because the people would waste a lot of
their time and resources on cleaning chores, thereby reducing their
time for other activities, such as socializing, developing new
technology, taking their children to a park, and getting together for
• The normal people
As a result of their obsession with cleaning, there
would be fewer people on the streets, in the parks, riding bicycles,
swimming, and in restaurants. The city would be clean, but it would be
socially unpleasant. The city would also be noticeably more quiet
because the people would spend most of their liesure time cleaning
rather than getting together to socialize, ride bicycles, or go
swimming. Living in that city would feel as if we are living among
The city with the "normal" people
would not need peasants for cleaning, either. Their city would be the
most pleasant of the three cities, but only until they started raising
children. Some of their children would be messy, and some would have
OCD problems, so unless the people were capable of controlling
reproduction, eventually their city would have a mixture of neat,
sloppy, and OCD people, thereby causing their city to resemble the
other cities in the world today.
The reason I want you to think
about how life would differ in those three imaginary cities is to help
you realize that sloppy people are not a trivial problem
that we should
ignore. Sloppy people are one of the reasons that we need a peasant
class to do cleaning chores. By evicting the sloppy
people, or restricting them to their own neighborhoods, a city
become so neat and clean that we can do as I've suggested, which is
share the cleaning chores.
The photo below of people picking
up litter might cause you to become horrified at the thought of having
to participate in the cleaning of your city, but if we were living in a
city in which sloppy people were evicted, there would not be much
cleaning to share. We would not have to clean fat and diapers from
sewers, and we would not have tons of litter, chewing gum, snot, and
spit from the streets, parks, and sidewalks.
Furthermore, if a city is restricted to
people who look for solutions to problems rather
than whine or have tantrums,
then instead of complaining about the cleaning chores, we could work
together to reduce the cleaning chores. Two examples of what we could
1) Since the government will be in control of the
economy, we can shift some of our resources from developing unnecessary
products to the development of machines to help with the
For example, instead of developing self driving automobiles, we could
create self-driving sweeping and mopping machines that clean the
offices, factories, and plazas. Since these type of machines do not
have to travel at high speed, and since they can operate at night when
we are asleep, it would be much easier for us to
create these machines
compared to self driving automobiles.
2) Since the government will be in control of the design and layout of
every aspect of the city, we can design the city to make it
easier to clean.
• The doors of buildings could be designed so that
and open and close them, thereby allowing cleaning machines to travel
through the office buildings and factories by themselves.
• The outsides
of the buildings could be designed with rails for automated window
washers to travel on.
• The toilets could be designed with a larger and
less serpentine path, and they could be connected to the walls rather
than the floors, thereby allowing the floors to be easily cleaned.
the diagram below, a conventional toilet (on the left)
has a narrow and serpentine
path, and only about 1.3 liters of water. Why not design toilets with a
less twisted path? And why not also control the human population so
that we don't have to skimp on the water for the toilets?
Incidentally, some of the techniques to
reduce cleaning would also help us save labor
in other areas. For example, by designing buildings so that cleaning
machines can open and close the doors, we also allow machines to travel
through the buildings to pick up and deliver packages, laundry, and
We currently create laws according to our emotional
reactions. For example, we want to remove murderers from society
because murder upsets us tremendously, but littering
stimulate our emotions very much, so we don't have a strong desire to
stop littering. If we design laws according to what will provide us
with the most pleasant life, then we would evict
people who litter, or restrict them to certain neighborhoods.
are no longer living like animals, and we should no longer tolerate
people who behave like animals. Unfortunately, we will resist putting
people on restrictions, and especially evicting them, because many of
our relatives and friends would be caught behaving like an animal, and
we want to give them special treatment. In order to create a better
life for ourselves, each of us must be able to allow the security
personnel to enforce the laws on our family members and friends. Do you have
that level of self-control?
what a city would be like with responsible
a city were to set standards of behavior that are similar to that of a
Navy submarine, or higher, then everybody in the city would be so
responsible and honest that the city would be able to provide services
that are impractical in our cities today, such as
operating without money, and providing free, self-serve food and drink
you wanted a banana or apple, you would pick it up at one of
free, self-serve fruit markets, and if you wanted a glass of orange
juice or beer, you would pour yourself a glass at one of the free
self-serve bars. The city would feel as if it was your own
our cities were to offer those services today, we would have a similar
problem as what we find at the smorgasbord restaurants, except worse.
Specifically, people would pick up excessive amounts of food
drinks, and then waste a lot of it. Many people
would also leave a mess
for somebody else to clean up.
Furthermore, the free food would
attract homeless people, unwanted children, refugees, and illegal
immigrants, and the food would enable them to reproduce in much larger
The higher we raise the standards for behavior in a
city, the more options we have in regards to designing the economic
system, apartment buildings, social clubs, recreational activities,
trains, and work environment. The city would also look more attractive.
• The city would not need chain-link
discourage badly behaved people from crossing into areas they should
stay out of.
What do you want to do with the rest of your life?
Are you willing to experiment with a city that
sets higher standards?
• The businesses would not need to roll down metal
grates at night to protect themselves from burglars.
• The city would not
need bright lights at night to discourage vandals, gangs, and robbers.
and drinks should be a pleasure
and a social activity
Incidentally, my remark that a city
could provide us with free,
self-serve bars that offer beer brings up an
interesting issue. Many
people in Europe have a custom of drinking beer or wine at dinner, or
they get together with their friends, but most of those people are not
alcoholics, and some of them do not become even become intoxicated. Why
is this custom so popular? Why would people who are not
interested in becoming intoxicated be interested in regularly drinking
beer or wine?
people might be drinking beer and wine simply because they picked up
the habit from their ancestors, similar to how people pick up
hairstyles and clothing styles, but that doesn't explain why
this custom became so popular.
think the reason this custom is popular is because beer and wine are
not beverages that we want to consume
quickly, especially not wine. The
alcoholics claim that wine has a wonderful flavor, but wine is as
unpleasant as diluted vinegar. I don't think diluted apple vinegar is
much different from apple wine. Alcoholics might drink wine
quickly, but most people sip it slowly. The end
result is that a person
might sip a glass of wine for more than an hour.
The unpleasant taste
of wine forces people to drink it very slowly, and this forces them to
remain longer at the dinner table, which in turn encourages them to
socialize. The enormous variety of
wines also provides people with
something to talk about.
The same is true with beer, especially
the beers that are available in some of the small towns in Germany. In
the German towns that I visited, when we ordered a beer, it took about
1/2 an hour to get the beer because it produced so much foam that when
the bartender pours some into a mug, most of it becomes foam, and so he
has to let the beer sit for a few minutes. Then he pours a bit more
beer into the mug, which once again produces a lot of foam, so he has
to wait a few more minutes for the foam to break down, and so on.
when we ordered a glass of those type of beers, we were forced to sit
at the table for about 1/2 an hour
before we got the beer. This forces people to socialize and
when we got the beer, we would sip it slowly rather than
drink it quickly. This forces us to socialize for another half an hour
If, after we have finished our beers, we decided to stay longer and get
another beer, we once again
had to wait about 1/2 an hour to get the second beer. The end result
is that we drink beer so slowly that we don't get intoxicated.
summarize this, my observations of the non-alcoholics who drink beer
and wine gives me the impression that the custom of drinking beer and
wine became popular because it helps people to socialize.
We like to
think of ourselves as wonderful creations of a loving God, but we are
just monkeys, and we have a certain amount of
awkwardness when we are
around other people. Men are always in competition with other men, for
example, so it is difficult for men to truly relax around one another.
Likewise, men and women are somewhat uncomfortable and awkward around
Beer and wine force people to drink slowly, which
encourages them to socialize. It also gives us something to do with our
hands while we are sitting at the table. If we were to sit at a table
without beer or wine, we would have nothing for our hands to do. A lot
of us have trouble sitting motionless. We want to do something with our
fingers. When we are sitting at a table with beer or wine, we can
repeatedly use our hands to sip some of the beer or wine. It makes the
sitting at a table less awkward. And the wide variety of beers and
wines gives people something to talk about.
To people who are
not interested in becoming drunk, beer and wine are
social drinks, not
drugs. Therefore, we could lower the alcohol level without interfering
with the purpose of the drink, which brings me to another
previous document, I pointed out that the human race certainly has the
ability to create beverages that don't have high levels of alcohol, and
which are also nutritious. For example, if you put some ordinary yeast
into a glass of ordinary apple juice, grape juice, pineapple juice, or
other juice, and let it ferment, you will end up with a carbonated
beverage that is less sweet and has a very low alcohol level. If the
juice is warm, it will take only a few hours to ferment, depending on
how much yeast you put into it, of course. The process is so easy and
quick that restaurants and bars could start the process in the morning,
and the drinks would be ready that afternoon. I have not tried
fermenting ordinary grapes, but I suspect that they would make an
acceptable wine, but with a lower level of alcohol.
There are businesses producing fermented apple juice right now, but
they are adding sugar to the juice because the
people who want such beverages are interested in becoming intoxicated.
However, we don't have to add sugar.
can further simplify the production of fermented drinks if we leave the
yeast in the drink. In a free enterprise system, the competition
between businesses is causing them to remove the yeast, but removing
the yeast also removes the carbonation, so after they remove the yeast
they have to add carbonation artificially. If people would tolerate the
yeast, then we can simplify the production of fermented juices. We can
provide ourselves with fermented juices that are more nutritious, low
in alcohol, and just as effective at forcing people to socialize.
I am correct that people enjoy beer and wine primarily because it
forces people to socialize, then beer and wine is more
that what bring us the most happiness in life is not
material items, trophies, or money. It is people.
people today are struggling to get more money because they believe that
money is the source of happiness, but I think we would have a much more
satisfying life if we created a more pleasant social environment for
ourselves in which we have people we feel comfortable with and
activities to do with them.
Instead of spending each day in a
struggle to acquire more material items, we should be working together
to create a city in which we can trust and enjoy the people we live
with, and which provides us with a work environment we enjoy, and in
which there is wide variety of leisure activities to enjoy. We should
focus on human relationships and doing things with people rather than
focus on mansions, pampering by servants, and material wealth.
is the difference between littering and poverty?
concepts about littering also apply to "poverty". Our government
promotes the theory
that people who cannot make a living are
ordinary people who either had bad luck, or are victims of
discrimination. Our government tries to eliminate poverty by providing
the poor people with apartment buildings, educational programs, and
handouts of food. However, the programs have failed to help them get
out of poverty.
According to government statistics, as of December 2016, there were 95 million
Americans who are not
working. Some of them might be mothers with young children, but many of
them are adults who either cannot find a job, or who do not want any of
the jobs that they are capable of getting. (The
government's has this
page to let you create your own graphs and charts if you are interested
in analyzing the data.)
year the number of adults without jobs increases. Millions of people
are hoping that President Trump will provide more people with jobs, but
all he can do is use tax money to provide financial support to a small
number of people. That does not solve the problem
of unemployment. In a free enterprise system, the government cannot
do anything to eliminate unemployment because it has no
authority over the economy. The government can only deceive
people into believing that it is reducing unemployment.
For example, at the end of 2016, Trump convinced
the Carrier company in Indiana to remain in the United States rather
than moving to some foreign nation. Although the people involved with
the deal are being secretive about the details, he apparently offered
them some type of financial assistance. It is common for governments to
offer financial benefits to businesses in an attempt to keep the
business in their area so that the governments officials can boast that
they are providing jobs, but this does not solve the unemployment
problem. Two of the reasons that this policy is worthless is:
When a government provides financial assistance to a business, they are
providing that business with an unfair competitive advantage over its
competitors, and that can cause their competitors to suffer a loss in
sales, which will cause them to eliminate employees or go bankrupt,
thereby increasing unemployment in other companies.
government cannot reduce unemployment by offering financial benefits to
businesses, but they do this on a regular basis anyway. Why are the
government officials doing this? In some cases it might be to appease
some group of voters, and in other cases it might be to help their
friends who are involved with those particular businesses.
businesses will want the government to provide them with some type of
financial benefits in order to remain competitive. However, the only
businesses that are likely to get the benefits are the very large
businesses. Therefore, this type of policy will help the large
businesses and hurt the smaller businesses. The end result could be
described as: the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.
think of only one sensible reason for government to offer financial
benefits to a business, and that is when a primitive nation offers
benefits to businesses from other nations. For example, when China
convinces IBM, Apple, or other technically advanced businesses to build
a factory in China, the Chinese people benefit in two ways:
1) Some of the Chinese people will be
provided with jobs that they would not otherwise have.
The Chinese people will be paid by the foreign business to learn how to
use the advanced manufacturing technology. Eventually the Chinese will
be able to build their own factories and compete against the business
that they lured into their nation.
is responsible for unemployment?
Earlier in this document I explained that
the voters are responsible for our inept and
corrupt government. Now I want to point out that in a free enterprise
system, the public is responsible for the economy.
The people control the economy by spending money. When they spend
money, they are voting to support certain
businesses. For example:
Businesses are moving to China because consumers are purchasing
products primarily according to price and not paying any attention to
how they are being produced, or where.
• Many businesses are deceptive and abusive because consumers are
supporting those businesses.
• Many businesses are using illegal immigrants as cheap labor because
the consumers are supporting those businesses.
In a free enterprise system, the
responsibility of the economy is on the consumers.
They are supposed to analyze the businesses and make wise decisions
about which business to give their money to. Unfortunately, this is
impractical in a modern society. Our economies are too complex for
consumers to make wise decisions.
The only sensible solution is to find the courage to experiment
with a more advanced economic system. We are not going to solve this
problem by using tax money to appease a few businesses.
do we stop businesses from moving out of the USA?
Some businesses want to move their
operations to China or
Mexico because the labor costs are much lower in those nations. The
reason this problem exists is because the nations are not
one another. There are significant social differences between us. The
people in the primitive nations are reproducing excessively, which is
causing the primitive nations to have enormous numbers of people who
are desperate for jobs.
The free enterprise system depends
upon fair competition, but it is not possible for competition to be
fair between two nations that have extreme differences in standards of
living. It is not possible for businesses in Europe
or the United States to compete fairly with businesses in China or
Sri Lanka supposedly
has a tremendous problem with child prostitution. In
China, there are reports of people selling their internal organs and
their children. In India there are reports of parents cutting off legs
and arms of their children in order to make them more successful as
beggars. How can people in the United States or Europe compete against
nations like that?
The people in the primitive nations should be ashamed
of what is going on in their nation, and they should be making an
attempt to improve their nations, but almost none of the people show
any shame or embarrassment. Their governments don't show any concern,
either. As with government officials everywhere, they waste their time
struggling to become absurdly wealthy, whining about foreign nations,
trying to eliminate their competition, and fighting with their
One way to solve this problem is to stop doing business
with the primitive nations. If the United States, Europe, Japan, and
Canada were to buy and sell products only among one another, we would
not have to compete with the hordes of hungry people in India and
China. The people in India and China would compete against one another
rather than us. Unfortunately, there are two reasons as to why most
people would oppose this policy:
1) This policy would cause the people in the primitive
nations to whine
that we are being cruel to them. Therefore, in order
for us to implement this policy, we would have to provide ourselves
with government leaders who have the emotional ability to tell the
primitive nations to stop whining for handouts and pity and start
improving their nation.
Unfortunately, most people do not want
government officials to be "leaders"; they want officials to be
submissive servants. Donald Trump probably does not even have the
ability to tell the primitive nations that we are not going to do
business with them until they improve their standard of living.
Furthermore, many people in the United States,
Canada, and Australia have a strong "feel sorry for me" attitude, and
the result is that have a tendency to promote policies that allow them
to feel sorry for the "poor" and "disadvantaged" people, rather than
the policies that tell the poor people to do something to improve their
2) This policy would cause products to increase in price
because we would have to pay Americans, Japanese, or Europeans to make
computers, clothing, and phones. Some people would not be
able to afford a new cell phone every year, and people who are
currently discarding clothing items when they get a trivial stain or
tear would not be able to afford such wasteful practices.
a minority of the population would understand and accept the higher
prices, the majority would likely whine about it simply because animals
humans are extremely selfish. We want to exploit
the people in
primitive nations, not encourage them to improve their nations,
increase their standard of living, and join the advanced nations. We
will not voluntarily stop exploiting the primitive
nations. We have to
be forced to stop it. Unfortunately, we will not be
do anything as long as we have governments of submissive servants who
pander to their supporters.
from poor nations cause a similar problem
The United States is accepting lots of
illegal aliens from other nations, and this is creating a similar
economic problem. Specifically, the people who come
into the United States from poor nations are willing to work at low
wages because it provides them with a better life than what they could
get in their own nation.
For example, in the city that I live
in, some families from Mexico and South America are willing to live in
one room of a house, which in turn allows them to offer themselves as a
very low cost source
of labor. This makes it impossible for the American people to compete
with them. These immigrants don't complain about the low wages or the
miserable living conditions because they regard their life in the USA
as being an improvement from what they had in their
from poor nations create an unfair economic battle. The only good way
to stop this problem is to restrict immigrants to people who want the
same standard of living as the rest of the population. In
such a case,
the immigrants will blend in with the other residents of the city,
rather than be analogous to slaves.
Although Donald Trump is
promising to provide Americans with jobs, he is so far showing
no interest in
stopping the unfair competition from immigrants. Actually, he is
behaving like typical businessmen. For example, in December 2016, even
though he was elected President and was promising to bring jobs to the
American people, he got approval
to hire 64 foreigners at Mar-a-Lago through the H-2B visa program.
justified this by claiming that he cannot find enough Americans for the
tourist season in Palm Beach. This brings up a very important issue
that businessmen and government officials are ignoring. Specifically,
there are two significantly different reasons as to why businesses have
trouble filling jobs:
1) The job requires a skill that not many people
Trump is hiring foreigners to work in a hotel, and most of the hotel
workers don't need much education, intelligence, skills, or training.
By comparison, there are some businesses who are looking for
highly skilled workers, such as machinists who can operate CNC
equipment, technicians who can repair railroad engines, and technicians
who can do DNA sequencing.
2) The wages are too low
Trump got permission to hire cooks for $12.74 per hour, waiters and
waitresses for $11.13 an hour, and housekeepers for $10.17 per hour.
be interested in working for those wages, especially for a
temporary job during the tourist season?
If Donald Trump would
double the wages, he would find a lot
of Americans are willing to do
the job. That would prove that there is no shortage
of people willing
to do the work. They simply don't want to work for the particular wages
that Trump is offering.
By comparison, a business that is
looking for someone to do DNA sequencing could increase the salary and
still not find somebody capable of doing the job.
and government officials are not being honest when they tell us that
the reason they bring foreigners into the country is because there are
no Americans to do the jobs. We have to make a distinction between when
a job is difficult to fill because the wages are low,
and when it is difficult to fill because it requires a skill
that the majority of people do not have, or do not want.
of the human population does not have the intelligence, desire,
ability, or skills to be a useful engineer, machinist, technician,
scientist, or computer programmer, so the government could justify
bringing those type of people into the country, but most people are
capable of working in hotels, farms, retail stores, and factories. We
do not need to bring immigrants into the country to
work in a hotel.
Why does Trump pay such low wages? One reason is because of
competition. The other restaurants and hotels are also
bringing immigrants into the nation to work at low wages.
the primary reason that Trump and the other businessmen are paying such
low wages is because they want to be billionaires.
They are not
satisfied to have an ordinary living, or even make 20 times as much as
the ordinary person. They have neurotic cravings to be Kings and
Queens. They want gigantic mansions, yachts, private airplanes,
and goldplated cell phones.
It should be noted that as the
businessmen struggle to become billionaires, they inadvertently create
a nation that they don't like. For example, when
they bring poor and
uneducated foreigners into the nation, they create a society in which
they complain about all of the uneducated immigrants, and that the
immigrants will not speak English or adapt to our culture. Their low
wages also cause the city to become full of neighborhoods with poor
people who are overcrowded.
are destroying society with their greed
businessmen are destroying society as they struggle to become
billionaires. If it were not for our
environmental regulations, many businessmen would have already
destroyed the creeks and lakes with toxic waste and garbage, and they
ruined the forests with their clearcutting techniques, and they would
have destroyed the fishing areas with their indiscriminate fishing
Since most businessmen are hysterical at the thought
of abortions and birth control, they encourage people to give birth to
unwanted and retarded babies, and they encourage even the idiots,
mentally ill, and criminals to have lots of babies.
Then the businessmen complain about all of the stupid, uneducated,
unwanted people who are
homeless, on welfare, or committing crimes.
As the businessmen struggle to become billionaires, and as they impose
their crude, conservative philosophy on society, they create a city
that is so miserable that they don't want to live
in it, or
have their children go to school in it. They want to isolate themselves
from the city that they helped to ruin.
experiment with a more sensible economic system. For example, by
creating a society that does not have a wealthy class or a peasant
class, and in which everybody has virtually the same home and material
items, the leaders of society will not be allowed able to isolate
themselves in mansions and gated communities. They will have to
among us. They will have to go to the same restaurants, use
elevators, and ride on the same trains. And by not allowing their
children to have any special privileges, their children will have to go
to the same schools and use the same recreational facilities as the
If the leaders of that type of society want
to improve their home and recreational facilities, they have to improve
the city for everybody. They will not be allowed to
improve only their
community because they will not have their own community.
They will be
a member of society, not a member of special, pampered class that has
their own land and privileges.
am special. I deserve special treatment.”
Some of the billionaires and government
undoubtedly claim that they should not have to live in an ordinary home
like an ordinary person because they are special, talented people. The
problem with this argument is that a lot of people can claim to be
special and talented. There are some unusually talented carpenters,
musicians, athletes, technicians, chefs, gardeners, and teachers. There
are thousands of people who could point out that they excel in some
particular talent, and therefore, they should be treated as a King or
I think a better philosophy is to tell people that your mental and
physical qualities are the result of a random jumble of
and that nobody should be praised simply because they inherited a
quality that gives them some unusual mental or physical talent.
Conversely, we should not torment the people who are below-average in
their qualities. They did not ask to be below-average. Society does not
benefit by insulting them.
Giving special treatment to people
who inherit some unusual talent, and tormenting people who are
substandard in some area, is as ridiculous as having every person in
society toss some dice, and giving special pampering to people who get
two sixes, and tormenting the people who throw two ones.
people who are exceptional as managers, artists, musicians, or
whatever, should be told to quietly use their talent without boasting,
and don't expect special treatment.
is going to continue to rise
If the advanced nations would stop
conducting business with
the primitive nations, then our businesses will remain in our nation
rather than move to India or China. This will provide more jobs for us,
but it will not stop unemployment from rising every year.
have described in other documents, unemployment is rising because
technology is causing our jobs to become increasingly complex. Every
year there are fewer people who want one of the modern jobs, and of the
people who want a job, there are fewer people who are capable of doing
them properly. To restate that concept, every year there are fewer
people who have the emotional desire to have a modern job, and who have
the intellectual and physical ability to do a modern job.
prehistoric times, the jobs were intellectually simple, and more
important, the jobs provided significant emotional satisfaction. For
example, when the people were hungry, they would search for food, and
that work provided them with direct emotional satisfaction.
comparison, the jobs people do today do not provide us with much
emotional satisfaction. For example, a person who is working on an
assembly line, or an engineer who is designing a bridge, or scientist
is who is doing some research, will spend hours every day doing his
job, but the results of his efforts do not provide him with any direct
emotional satisfaction. In order for those people to enjoy their job,
they have to enjoy the concept of what they are
problem with jobs is that many of the jobs in a free enterprise system
are unappealing to us, such as selling fraudulent insurance policies,
or trying to manipulate children into desiring a particular toy or
candy. People are not going to get job satisfaction from those type of
jobs. People do those type of jobs only for money, for only until they
can find a better job.
In order for people to enjoy jobs today,
we need to redesign our economic system so that we can ensure that all
of the jobs are useful, and that everybody can be proud of what they
do. However, even if we were to do that, some people are not going to
enjoy any of the modern jobs simply because they don't receive much
satisfaction from doing something that is useful for society.
differ in our interest in society. The people with the least interest
in society will want to spend their time pursuing their emotional
cravings, not working in a team and considering what is best for
society. They will not enjoy teamwork. They will want to work for
themselves and never have to worry about their effect on society.
One of the
reasons that communism is a failure is because it expects people to
work for the benefit of society. Unfortunately, most people do not seem
to have enough of an interest in society to want to work for society.
Animals evolved to work only when their emotions have been triggered,
such as hunger, thirst, or fear. When an animal has no particular
problems, it has a tendency to take a nap.
Humans have a greater
interest in society than animals, but each of us differs in how much of
an interest we have. For example, there are some people in the police
and military who are willing to risk their life to help
society. Why are they doing this? They certainly have the ability to
find some other job. Obviously, they have a strong desire to help their
If we could measure a person's interest in society, we might find that
the majority of people have an interest that is too low
for them to live in the type of city that I am proposing because they
will not have enough of an interest in contributing to society or
sharing in the chores.
A significant percentage of the American population is showing no
concern that Israel blew up the World Trade Center towers, or that
there is a pedophile network in control of our governments. Some of
those people might truly be naive, but we should consider the
possibility that they are apathetic because they have such a low
interest in society that they want to ignore those issues and focus on
titillating themselves. This would explain why they are willing to talk
about Lady Gaga and sports, but not about the lies about the Holocaust
or the lies about the 9/11 attack.
provide the typical person with information about some of the world's
problems, such as pizzagate, they have a tendency to turn away. They
don't want to
listen to the problems of society. They want to focus on themselves.
Like an animal, they want to spend their time entertaining themselves
with food, sex, babies, material items, status, and television.
The crime, corruption, wars, and other problems are
coming from a small minority of the population. Since they are a
minority, the majority of people could easily stop
them from causing trouble, so why don't we?
who has told his friends or relatives that we have been lied to about
the 9/11 attack, the Apollo moon landing, and the Holocaust should be
able to see the answer to that question; namely, the majority of people
do not care enough about society to
want to get involved with society's
problems. Most people want to focus on titillating themselves. Most
people do not have much of what we could describe as a "team spirit".
of us differs in how much we care about society; in how much we want to
be a member of a team. It should be noted that I am not the first
person to notice this difference between us. People in management
positions have been complaining for centuries that
some people do
only what they have to do, and are more concerned with themselves than
with the team.
Ideally, when we are working with a team, we
would be able to control our personal preferences so that we can focus
on our job, but that is not easy to do. We are inherently selfish, so
we want to spend some of our time thinking about ourselves. As a
result, each of us spends some of our time worrying about who on the
team is getting the most attention, promotions, or money, and we also
spent some time fantasizing about what we will do on the weekend, or
how much fun we will have when we purchase a new material item, or what
we will do with our children, friends, or spouse when we are finished
Each of us differs in our ability and desire to ignore
our personal desires and focus on the team. An employee who does not
have much of an interest in society is going to spend more of his time
thinking about what he will do on the weekend, or fantasizing about
purchasing a new television set. Those type of employees are the most
likely to make mistakes because their mind is not on their job, and
they are most likely to overlook opportunities to help the team. Those
type of employees are similar to circus seals because they do only what
they have to do, and they need a lot of supervision because they don't
want to figure out what they need to do. They want to spend their time
fantasizing about food, sex, television, and other issues.
comparison, an employee who has more of an interest in his team will be
more focused on his job, so he will be less likely to make mistakes,
and more likely to notice opportunities to improve the team.
will not work properly because most people are too selfish to work for
society. Communism depends upon people who will work for the team. If
everybody is provided
with free food, housing, and other items, as communism promotes, most
people would choose to spend each day entertaining themselves. They
would not choose to learn a skill and do some useful work.
prehistoric times, it was acceptable for people to be selfish. They did
not need much of an interest in society. Although the prehistoric men
would often hunt together, that type of activity does not require much
teamwork. Hunting does not require advanced intellectual
abilities. Groups of wolves and hyenas are capable of hunting
together. Prehistoric life was so intellectually
simplistic that both the men and women could be independent and selfish
without causing any trouble for their community.
It makes sense
for animals and prehistoric people to be more concerned with themselves
and their children than with their community. However, the aspects of
modern society that we enjoy require large and highly supervised teams
of people who can focus on their job and work together. It is becoming
increasingly important for people to have a desire to help their
community and work in teams.
Unfortunately, most people who have
jobs seem to be working only because they want money, not because they
want to contribute something of value to society. Most
people do not show much of an interest in society. They are much more
concerned with their income, and they waste a lot of their time
worrying about who has more money than they do. They are behaving like
monkeys who are fighting over a bunch of bananas.
work only for money are behaving like circus seals. They will do some
work if we offer them some money, but they will not do anything
otherwise. The people who have the least concern for society are
actually dangerous because they can be hired to do jobs that are
detrimental. For example, there are accusations that George Soros has
been hiring people to stage demonstrations. There are also lots of
people who can be hired to murder strangers, or hit an ice skater in
the knees with a baseball bat.
People who work only for money
will not help their community unless they are paid
For example, when we tell the typical person that we have been lied to
about the 9/11 attack, the majority of people show no concern.
In order to get the typical person to do something about the 9/11
attack, or the corruption in the government, we must offer them some
For example, if I had as much money as George Soros,
then instead of hiring people to participate in demonstrations, I could
hire people to help investigate and expose the
lies about 9/11, the Apollo moon landing, the Holocaust, and other
crimes. People who ridicule me as a conspiracy theorist would be
willing to take the job and help me expose the crimes. The more money I
offered, the more people I would attract to this type of job. If I
offered a high enough salary, many people would quit their current jobs
and help me expose these crimes.
This concept applies to
children, also. For example, children do not have a natural craving to
clean up after themselves. Children must be taught to clean up after
themselves, but every child differs in their interest in being clean.
If the parents of sloppy children were to offer money to their children
for cleaning their bedroom, some of those sloppy children would take
the offer. If the parents increased the amount of money that they
offer, more of the sloppy children would take the offer.
course, there is a point at which this technique fails to control a
sloppy child. For example, once a child has enough money to satisfy
himself, he is not going to care if he is offered more money. He will
revert to being a sloppy as he wants to be.
we can manipulate animals and people with rewards, at least to a
certain extent, many people believe that the free enterprise system is
the greatest economic system possible because it provides us with
rewards for our work. Many parents believe that the proper way to raise
children is to offer them money to be clean, and to offer them money
for doing well in school. However, I think we would create a much
better world when we don't have to control human behavior with rewards
It is true that we can get people to do work by
offering them money, but I think the ideal solution is to control
reproduction so that people become less like an animal. People should
clean up after themselves because they want to be neat,
and they should do something useful for society because they want
to do contribute. People should be honest because they want
to be honest,
and they should resist pedophilia because they do not have any interest
in it. Children should go to school because they want to learn
something useful, not because their parents are offering them money.
a previous document, I suggested you spend some time imagining what it
would be like to create a new world on another planet. I think that
type of scenario can help you to get a better understanding of yourself
and other people. If you had the resources to travel to a beautiful,
uninhabited planet in another solar system, who would you want to take
with you, and what type of world would you end up creating?
you want to take a bunch of idiots so that you can use them as peasants
to pamper you with luxuries, allowing you to become the king or queen
of your planet? Or would you take people who are more equal to you, in
which case you would become a team member who works with them rather
than having them work for you? Would you want to take people to your
planet who will work only when you offer them money, and who follow the
laws only when you threaten to punish them with jail or executions?
Hopefully you can understand that the world you create would be a
reflection of your mental qualities, and the
qualities of the people that you selected to take
with low interests in society are dangerous
No human is so mindless that he will do
anything for money.
However, we differ in our concern for following laws and contributing
to society. Some people will refuse to work at an insurance company
that sells fraudulent insurance policies, for example, whereas another
person can be hired to kill somebody for a small amount of money. Of
the people who can be hired to kill somebody, some of them show a
concern that they are killing somebody that they regard as worthless to
society, whereas others don't care who they kill.
concern a person has for
society, the more dangerous he is. The
reason these people are dangerous is because they will do something
that is destructive to society simply to make money. They can be used
by crime networks, corrupt government officials, corrupt judges, and
your ex-spouse to commit crimes and murder people. They will also start
businesses that manipulate and deceive people.
insurance companies that offer policies for people who are worried
about being abducted by aliens from another planet. Supposedly tens of
thousands of people have purchased
such insurance policies. Were those insurance policies created by
somebody who actually believes that they are sensible policies? I
suspect that they were created by somebody who wants money more than he
cares about society, and that he is deliberately and consciously
exploiting foolish people.
conceivable that eventually we understand the human brain so well that
a computer would be able to analyze a person's DNA and
provide a list of the type of bribes that the person is willing to
take, the type of deceptive products he would be willing to sell, and
the type of crimes that he could be hired to commit. Each of us would
undoubtedly be surprised to see the results of
our own mind.
We like to believe that we are so intelligent and
educated that we know how we will behave in different situations, but
we cannot accurately predict ourselves because we don't understand
ourselves well enough. We often behave differently than we expect.
a person doesn't have much of an interest in society, it is because of
his genetic personality. We cannot increase his desire through
punishments, rewards, Bible studies, or drugs. If a person can be
bribed with small amounts of money, it is also because of his genetic
characteristics, and there is nothing we can do to make him become more
resistant to bribes.
Why don't the people who take bribes show
any guilt? Why
don't the businesses that sell worthless products show any guilt? How
can a person enjoy a job in which he is cheating other people? To
understand this, just take a look at how predators feed
A predator survives and feeds its family by sneaking up to
and chasing after other animals, and then killing
them. What they do
could be described as "murder", but they do not regard themselves as
cruel or murderous. They regard themselves as having fun, and as
feeding their children. Their brains have evolved to enjoy the act of
capturing and killing other animals. They get pleasure from being
successful with the act of murder.
When a hyena
sees a lion with the dead antelope, the hyena will try to steal the
antelope, but he does not regard himself as a thief. Animals will steal
items from one another without any guilt or embarrassment because they
regard themselves as owner of the planet. Each animal regards the other
animals as trespassers on his territory, and he regards the other
animals as taking things that belong to him.
When a male bird
brings an animal for the female to eat, the female never complains that
he is murdering innocent creatures, or that he is taking food away from
birds who are hungrier than she is.
Predatory animals enjoy
hunting and killing, and as a result, they would exterminate themselves
if they enjoyed killing their own species. Therefore, the only
predators that survived were those that evolved emotional inhibitions
towards killing their own species.
In another document I pointed
out that I think the reason humans are disgusted by our waste products
is to compensate for our curiosity and
intelligence. The same concept applies to murder. As our monkey-like
ancestors developed intelligence and tools, they became increasingly
killing. Those who survived the battle for life were those
who developed stronger inhibitions against killing, especially the
killing of their
These inhibitions caused our prehistoric ancestors
to "respect" animals; ie, to kill them only for food rather than for
entertainment. Furthermore, unlike animals, who kill animals in any
manner they please, our inhibitions cause us to be concerned about
whether the animal is suffering. We want to kill animals in a "nice"
manner. Our concern about suffering is so extreme that children are
often reprimanded for pulling the wings off of flies.
A lot of
people like the fantasy that animals are better behaved than humans,
but animals are actually much more selfish, irrational, and cruel than
humans. For example, no animal shows a concern about whether an animal
that it is killing is suffering. Only humans show this concern.
are actually much more kind and thoughtful than animals. Animals appear
to be more peaceful and loving than humans only because they are so
have a very limited memory, and don't engage in much mental
masturbation. For example, when a human is upset by some other human,
he might spend decades reminding himself of the event, thereby
stimulating anger towards the other person for decades. Animals do not
do engage in such mental masturbation.
Humans have actually
become much more polite, peaceful, and loving than the animals. We
become upset at the thought of killing animals for entertainment, or in
a cruel manner, and we have such intense inhibitions about
killing our own species that when people have fights, we have rules
about how to fight, and when it is up acceptable for a person to kill
another person. Soldiers have to follow rules when they fight wars. By
comparison, when animals fight, they don't follow rules. They do
whatever they please. They don't care about cruelty or senseless
Unfortunately, our inhibitions about killing creatures
is inappropriate for the world today. If we follow our
inhibitions without thinking about what we are doing, we will do a lot
of senseless things, such as struggle to keep retarded babies alive,
even if the baby does not have a brain; complain about farmers who
raise animals for their meat; and complain that it is cruel to use
animal skin as leather.
Our inhibitions about killing our own
species is so strong that millions of people cannot tolerate abortion,
euthanasia, or assisted suicide. Our inhibitions have also caused
people to develop elaborate funeral rituals. We are so upset at the
visual appearance of a dead human that we pay funeral businesses to
clean the dead body, and place it in a casket so that the person
appears to be sleeping.
Furthermore, we don't want to recycle
the dead humans as fertilizer, or use their meat as animal food. We
want to bury the bodies in a cemetery, and we like to imagine that they
will survive in the cemetery forever. Some people become so attached to
their pet dog or cat that they want to put it through the same type of
Family members that live in different areas of
the world will get together for a funeral, and they will spend a
significant amount of money on the funeral and on traveling to the
funeral. However, all that time and money is spent simply to allow them
to cry and pout.
It was acceptable for our prehistoric ancestors
to have funerals because their funerals were quick and simplistic, and
since they were nomadic, they didn't have permanent cemeteries with
expensive graves and coffins. In our era, businesses are exploiting our
inhibitions about death and and providing us with absurdly expensive
and idiotic funeral procedures. (I discussed the issue of
funerals in more detail here.)
do people enjoy stealing items?
Although our monkey-like ancestors
inhibitions against murder, we did not develop inhibitions against
stealing things. Rather, all animals have the attitude that they are
the most important creature, and that everything belongs to them.
Animals grab at whatever they are attracted to. They do not recognize
the concept of personal property.
When an animal fights with
another animal over water, food, or land, they do not regard themselves
as selfish, abusive, or dishonest. Rather, they regard themselves as
defending their food in land from intruders that are trying to steal it
from them. Animals are proud of themselves when they grab food and
water. They do not feel guilty that they are stealing something.
also have the attitude that everything belongs to us. We have a
tendency to grab at whatever we want, and fight with anybody who tries
to take it from us. This is most noticeable with children. As we grow
up, we develop some self-control and intelligence, but each of us
develops different levels of self-control and intelligence.
reason humans enjoy stealing items is for the same reason that animals
enjoy grabbing at food and fighting over land. Specifically, we do not
regard ourselves as "stealing" items. Rather, we regard ourselves as
taking what is ours. Many people who shoplift, burglarize homes, cheat
the government, or steal from the organization they work for will
justify their behavior with such remarks as, "I am simply getting what
I deserve." Or, "I am taking what they took from me."
were living in an environment in which lots of people were stealing
items on a regular basis, you would be more tempted to steal items,
also, simply to get back what they were stealing from you. However, it
is important to note that even though the environment can cause you to
become more likely to steal, the environment does not
change our genetic personality.
The people who are the most likely to steal items will continue to be
the most likely to steal no matter what the social environment is.
we could measure a person's tendency to grab at what he wants, we would
find that we create a bell curve. As we change the environment that we
are living in, we can cause crime to increase or decrease, but that
bell curve remains the same. The environment can cause the bell curve
to shift towards the right or left, – to cause people to be more likely
to commit crimes, or less likely – but it doesn't change the people's
In other words, if we put people into an environment that encourages
crime, everybody will be more likely to
commit crimes, but if we were to measure the crimes, we would find that
people remain in nearly the same position of the bell curve. In other
words, the minority of people who steal the least will continue to
steal the least, and the people who steal the most will continue to
steal the most, and the majority of people will continue to be average.
enjoy being successful
Animals and humans enjoy being successful
chasing away dangerous creatures, and finding water, and we become
upset when we fail. Unfortunately, emotions are so simplistic that they
don't know or care about whether we are successful at something that is
meaningful. This can cause us to become excited when we are
successful at something that is worthless, and we can become upset when
we fail at something that is worthless.
For example, a dog can
be entertained when somebody throws a ball for him to chase after. The
dog's emotions don't know or care that the ball has no meaning to him.
The dog will be titillated simply by becoming successful at capturing
Humans can also titillate themselves when we are
successful at something, even if the activity is meaningless. For
example, certainly you have frequently seen two men throwing a football
back and forth to one another, playing games of checkers, or solving a
crossword puzzle. None of these activities provide us with anything of
value, but we are titillated if we are successful at the activity.
Furthermore, we become upset when we fail at the activity, even though
failure in those particular activities is meaningless. Even worse, the
people with the least self-control, or the least ability or desire to
think about what they are doing, can react to failure with anger,
tantrums, crying, or pouting.
Because our emotions are so
simplistic, we can also become titillated when we are successful at
destructive things, such as stealing items. One of the reasons people
enjoy crime is because they get satisfaction out of being successful at
it. Furthermore, a person who fails in one of his crimes will become
upset with his failure. This enjoyment of crime is another example of
why modern humans must think about their behavior rather than do
whatever titillates us.
This concept also applies to the people
who become absurdly wealthy. They are collecting more money than they
have a use for. The reason is because they are enjoying the act of
making money. Although the wealthy people are considered to be
"successful" in a free enterprise system, unless they are doing
something useful for society as they make money, they are essentially
just intelligent dogs that waste their life chasing after sticks.
everybody would put some effort into thinking about what they are doing
with their life, and if we all had enough self-control, then instead of
enjoying shoplifting or making money, we would want jobs that are truly
beneficial. We would
want to work for a business that sells useless products or insurance
policies, and we would not want to steal items from one another.
we would want our leisure activities to have more value. For example,
instead of sitting at home alone and titillating ourselves with
crossword puzzles or collections of Barbie dolls, we would be more
interested in doing something useful for our community. I've discussed
the issue of more useful leisure activities in previous documents
which I suggested the city government support a wide variety of social
clubs that offer us beneficial leisure activities to choose from, such
as arts and crafts clubs that decorate the city; gardening clubs that
produce orchids and bonsai trees for the parks and restaurants; and CNC
clubs that cut rock, wood, and other materials for foot bridges,
rowboats, and other items for the city.
us, but does not change us
Although our environment can alter our
attitudes and moods,
and cause us to become disgusted with our government or other people,
the environment does not change our personality. If a person has
an interest in society, he will
continue to have that interest even if he is working at a business that
has caused him to lose his interest in his team, or even if he is
living in a nation that he is so disgusted with that he has no interest
Perhaps a good
way to understand this concept is to consider how it applies to food.
All of us have a strong craving to eat food when we are hungry.
However, what we eat, and how much we eat, depends upon the environment
that we are in. For example, if you were invited to dinner at
somebody's house, and if they provided an environment that you did not
find appealing, or if you did not like their food, your desire to eat
food will be noticeably suppressed.
For example, imagine if a
family in Cambodia invited you to dinner to eat fried tarantulas with
them. Even though your desire for food is just as strong as theirs, you
may find that their environment has caused you to lose your appetite.
However, that environment cannot alter your brain. You will retain the
same genetic circuitry that you had before you were invited to dinner.
Once you leave that environment, you will return to eating the foods in
the quantities that you were eating before.
The same is true
with a person's interest in society. If a person gets a job for a
business that he discovers is dishonest or abusive, he might lose his
interest in the working for the business, and he might go to work only
to get a paycheck. While he is working, he may not spend any of his
time thinking about how to help his team. He may instead spend his time
daydreaming about his family, his hobbies, getting another job, or
retiring. However, that environment will not change his brain
circuitry. He will retain the same interest in society that he had
before he got the job. Therefore, if he were to find a job in a more
respectable company, he would become a productive team member.
When parents pamper their
children, they encourage their children to become accustomed to
thinking of themselves rather than contributing to the family and
exerting self-control. The parents who believe that they are giving
their child a wonderful life by pampering them are actually encouraging
their children to become arrogant and selfish. Pampering a child will
not rewire his brain and cause him to become a spoiled brat, but it
encourages such behavior.
The significance of this concept is
that there are some people who don't show much of an interest in their
job or society, but it is not necessarily because they don't have any
interest in becoming a productive team member. It could be because they
are working in a government agency, business, or other organization
that they regard as useless, destructive, or disgusting.
also possible that some of the people who show no interest in society
have been pampered so much during their childhood that they have become
accustomed to thinking only of themselves, and that they would develop
an interest in society if they volunteered for some type of
military-like training program to get them accustomed to thinking of
themselves as team members.
I think we should experiment
with a society in which the schools are putting children through
programs that give them practice in controlling their cravings, and
give them practice working in teams. We cannot expect parents to do
this because mothers have too strong of a craving to play with their
children rather than prepare them for society, and fathers don't have
much of interest in raising children. The military should not have to
teach adults how to make their bed, clean up after themselves, or
become team members. Children should learn those lessons.
schools put every child through these programs, we would find that
every child becomes better at controlling himself, and develops a
greater ability to work in a team, but we would to
find that the children differ in their abilities and desires. We would
that half the population is always below-average in regards to
controlling themselves and in working in a team.
people who have a below-average ability to control their cravings, or
who have a below-average interest in society, cannot be fixed through
punishments, rewards, or drugs. Likewise, the people who can easily be
bribed cannot be fixed of that problem. Our self-control, selfishness,
interest in society, and other qualities, are due to the genetic design
of our brain. Educational and training program can help us to
understand ourselves, practice self-control, and develop our talents,
but there is nothing we
can do to improve our genetic blueprint.
If a person's brain was
not designed to have a strong interest in society, there is nothing we
can do to fix him. If a person's brain is willing to kill a stranger
for a small amount of money, there's nothing you can do to fix that
The attitude in the military is to give
everybody an opportunity to discover and develop their abilities by
putting all recruits through the same
training program. However, the military does not try to fix bad
behavior with punishments or Bible studies. We should apply the
same concept to a society. All children should be given the opportunity
to develop their talents. They should all have the same educational and
training programs. However, we must face the evidence that a certain
percentage of the population is going to be genetically unfit, or
genetically inferior. We must stop trying
to fix the destructive people. They need to be restricted to their own
neighborhoods, or exiled to the City of Misfits, or euthanized.
a normal body weight does not make a person superior
I recommend that we pass judgment on
intellectual qualities, but it's not an easy thing to do. Consider the
issue of judging a person's weight. We regard fat people as inferior to
people who are capable
of maintaining a proper body weight, but life is not this simple.
Almost everything is life is more complicated than it appears. There
are different reasons as to why we have different body weights. For
• Some people who have a normal body
weight might be eating excessive amounts of food on a
regular basis, but their
digestive system is so defective that they extract only a small amount
of the nutrients.
In order to
truly understand who among us is capable of controlling our body
weight, we have to take into account the fact that we have different
digestive systems, and we would have to put each of us into an
environment in which we have access to excessive amounts of food that
Some overweight people might have a "normal" appetite and eat
"normal" amounts of food, but have such a superior digestive system
that they should be eating less than "normal". In
those people to maintain a normal body weight, they would have to
regularly suffer from hunger because their appetite was set for a
"normal" digestive system, not an efficient digestive system.
• A person might maintain a normal body weight because he is forcing
himself to vomit after some of his meals.
• Some people may
be maintaining a normal body weight only because their spouse provides
such unpleasant meals that they don't want to eat excessive amounts of
food. That might seem to be a ridiculous remark for me to make, but the
reason I say this is because I have seen many families that regularly
create meals that I don't like the taste of, and I can understand why
the people in those homes do not overeat their meals.
• Some people have a diet that is dominated by foods that are
undesirable to humans, and I can understand why they don't get fat. For
example, many of the people in Asia and Africa have diets that are
dominated by rice and seafood. When Asians or Africans move to America
or Europe, they often become fat, and it does not seem to be
because they become more sedentary. Rather, it seems to be because they
enjoy the foods in America and Europe much more, and eat them
excessively. To rephrase that, a lot of people in Asia and Africa are
maintaining a normal body weight only because their food is disgusting,
not because they have good self-control.
person is not honest simply because he has not committed a crime
The concepts about our body weight apply
to other issues, also, such as
crime. For example, we cannot judge a person's honesty by whether he
has been convicted of a crime. The reason is because some of the
people who have never been convicted for a crime may actually be more
dishonest than the people who have been convicted, but they
in a situation that gave them the opportunity to commit a crime.
example, not many of us have embezzled money from our employer, but if
all of us were in a business they gave us good opportunities to
embezzle, we would discover that some of us would take that
opportunity. Likewise, a lot of men have not been involved with
pedophilia, but if all of us were hired for a job in a Children's
Hospital, and if we all had
access to young children who were under anesthesia, especially if there
were other pedophiles working in
the hospital, we would discover that some of us would join in on the
In order to truly determine who among us is honest,
we have to put each of us into a variety of environments that gives us
the opportunity to commit a variety of crimes.
with the issue of food, in order to truly understand who is honest, we
have to fix everybody's medical problems. For example, some of the
people who have been born blind or crippled may be living an honest
life, but that might be because their physical disabilities make it
difficult for them to commit crimes, not because they are honest.
we were to put all of the physically disabled people, midgets, and
dwarves on their own planet, and fix all of their medical problems, we
would find that they create a world that has similar social problems.
other words, half of their population would be below average in
intelligence, honesty, and self-control, and there would be criminals,
obese people, alcoholics, drug addicts, and pedophiles.
We have a natural tendency to feel sorry for people who are born with a
physical disorder, but all of us have genetic
disorders. There is nothing special about a person who was born blind
or crippled. They simply have a different set of disorders
than you and I have. The blind people are no more honest than the rest
of us, and they have just as much trouble as the rest of us in
controlling their eating habits, gambling, and alcohol consumption.