Hufschmid's main page
Page for this series
Philosophy page

How do we improve our world?

Part 3: 
Designing better cities and nations

2 August 2007

Our ancestors went through a lot of suffering to discover that they cannot believe an idea just because it "makes sense" or "is obvious".

We must verify all of our brilliant ideas because most of them turn out to be inaccurate.

Scientists, engineers, and computer programmers spend a lot of time making mistakes and fixing their mistakes. Developing a functional product or computer program is much more difficult than it appears; it requires teams of people and lots of effort.

Humans have yet to learn these lessons in regards to social technology. People still have the primitive attitude that they can develop solutions to the world social problems all by themselves, and with only a few moments of thought. People assume that they're brilliant ideas about government, crime, and religion are correct because they "make perfect sense".

However, developing social technology will be as difficult and time-consuming as developing physical technology. Creating better laws, a better school system, or a better economy will require teams of people, and their job will never end. After we develop a better school or government, we will have to observe its performance and try to find ways to improve upon it.

Most social technology today is unrealistic
Every nation has been designed according to "sensible" principles, but no government has functioned as it was intended; no legal system has been effective at reducing crime; and no school system is properly preparing children for society or giving them an accurate view of historical events (e.g., the world wars, the Apollo moon landing, 9/11). Our social technology is extremely crude, and as a result, organized crime is rampant; corruption is everywhere; and suffering is widespread.

Many people assume that they can fix these problems by altering the laws, creating new government agencies, or electing a different president, but nothing is going to make our social technology work because all of it is based on false assumptions about life and the human mind. It doesn't matter that our governments or school systems "make sense" to us; they are as unrealistic and hopeless as a perpetual waterwheel.

Nonsensical technology cannot be repaired
We cannot fix technology that is unrealistic. Water will never flow in a manner that the drawing above requires, so there is no possible way to get that technology to function properly. Likewise, communism, free enterprise, and democracies cannot be fixed because they require people to behave in a manner that they will never behave.

All of the social technology that has been created so far must be discarded because all of it is based on nonsensical theories. We should not make any attempt to repair any of the nations that we have today. Instead, we should learn from their failures and design a new world. Some of the lessons we can learn from the previous failed governments are:

Territorialism must be suppressed
Humans and animals are territorial; we consider pieces of the earth to be our own, and we chase away trespassers. The concept of a "trespasser" is due to this emotion.

This emotion serves an important purpose for animals and primitive humans, but in our era it causes families to fight over property boundaries – sometimes over differences as small as one centimeter – and it causes nations to fight with neighboring nations.

Should Ireland be a separate nation, or should it be a region of England? Should Puerto Rico be independent? Should Taiwan be part of China? Is the Ukraine a region of Russia? Should North and South Korea be united? Should Canada, the USA, and Mexico join together into a North American Union?

It should be noted that the citizens of a nation do not instigate fights over national boundaries. Rather, these fights are due to a very small number of people, mainly a few top government officials. All throughout history the ordinary people have been suckers who foolishly allowed their government officials to send them into wars over territorial issues.

Henry Kissinger supposedly said, "Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy." However, military men are not the only pawns. The engineers who design military weapons are also pawns, and so are the factory workers who make the weapons, and so are the farmers who provide food for the military, and so are the other citizens who provide tax money to fund the war.

A small group of people have been taking advantage of the majority for a long time. Understanding why this abuse is happening will allow us to design governments, schools, and other social technology to reduce or prevent this abuse.

Advanced weapons must be suppressed
As mentioned in Part 2 of this series, the typical attitude towards crime is to hide from criminals and protect ourselves from them. Nations are following this same philosophy in regards to war. Specifically, their response to war is to develop weapons and prepare for war. As a result, an significant percentage of our population and resources are wasted on the development and stockpiling of weapons and on maintaining large militaries.
The significance of this issue might become more apparent when you consider how weapons and wars are becoming increasingly destructive and expensive as technology advances.

A thousand years ago, for example, military weapons consisted of sharp sticks, crude metal knives, and arrows. The lack of manufacturing technology meant that every weapon had to be made by hand, and that in turn meant that weapons were always in short supply. The weapons were dangerous, but only at very close distances, and the weapons required human muscle as their power source so a person could do only a certain amount of damage before he became exhausted. Furthermore, no society in that era could support a long war. The soldiers would have to frequently stop fighting and search the forest for food, for example.

Today we can produce weapons in extremely large quantities, and the weapons are much more destructive. Today we can kill without any physical effort, and we can kill people who are thousands of kilometers away from us. We also have transportation devices that can supply a military force with endless amounts of food and supplies, so they never have to stop fighting.

Another interesting change in warfare is that we no longer have to see the victims. This allows people to treat war as a form of entertainment. For example, in 1991, while the American Air Force was bombing Iraq, the American people were having parties while watching it on television. In 2006 the Israelis treated the bombing of Lebanon to be family entertainment.

“These were left over from the bombing of the USS Liberty”

“In the land of the Goy, the Khazar is king.”

More amusing remarks are at this page:

Weapons in the future will become even more destructive, smaller, easier to manufacture, and more difficult to defend against. We already have computer controlled airplanes that can be used for surveillance and bombings, and there are people trying to make these drones so small that they resemble flies.
Computer technology is not yet advanced enough to provide this robotic fly with the ability to do anything, but that may change in the future.

Another group is trying to develop robotic fleas.

These tiny drones could be used to infect people with biological weapons, or they could be sent to kill specific people by injecting them with poison. They could also be used to kill livestock. Imagine these tiny drones getting into the hands of organized crime gangs, such as the Zionist crime network.

How much longer are humans going to continue putting significant amounts of scientific talent and resources into increasingly advanced military weapons? When are we going to stop stockpiling weapons like a frightened child and start taking steps to stop this nonsense?

War is not the result of the citizens; rather, it comes from a very small number of people at the top positions in government. During the Middle Ages the kings and queens would instigate wars, and during the last century the Zionist crime network has been the primary instigators of wars.

Ending war may seem to be an unrealistic fantasy, but the majority of people do not want war; there are only a small number of people pushing for war. The resistance to war is very high. The only reason we have wars is because the majority of people are being tricked into supporting wars. The 9/11 attack is an excellent example of how the Americans and Europeans were tricked into attacking Afghanistan and Iraq.

The world wars, the September 11 attacks, the Apollo moon landing hoax, the HoloHoax, and other tricks provide us with a lot of information on how nations are being manipulated by small groups of people. By understanding how they manipulate people, we can design a nation to reduce or prevent the manipulation. For example, we should design a school system that requires children learn about false flag operations.

If you don't know what a false flag operation is, watch the brief video #6 at this page:

If you have not looked into the HoloHoax:

We also need to make changes to our legal system and law-enforcement agencies to make it easier for them to get rid of organized crime networks; we need to make changes to our economy and media to prevent organized crime networks from getting control of our news agencies and school textbooks; we need to change our government so that the officials do not have any authority or ability to start wars; and we need to change the manner in which we select government officials so that incompetent officials and puppets of organized crime networks cannot even qualify as candidates for top government jobs.

Perhaps the most important lesson to learn about these tricks is that we cannot expect the majority of people to play an active role in dealing with the world's problems. Those of us who have been struggling to expose the 9/11 attack have discovered that the majority of people refuse to care. The concept of letting the majority of people dominate a nation is as ridiculous as a perpetual waterwheel.

City planning must be forced on most people
Every government and economic system has been a failure in regards to cities. It doesn't matter if a city was developed under a communist government, a monarchy, or a free enterprise system. Homes, businesses, farms, warehouses, garbage dumps, and factories are scattered haphazardly all over the world. Public transportation is ineffective in most cities because of this chaos.

Many homes and schools are built next to railroad tracks, airports, or highways, resulting in unpleasant levels of noise and pollution. Some homes are placed next to high-voltage electric lines that crackle when the air is moist. Some construction companies have built homes with substandard insulation, windows, or electrical wiring. Sometimes homes are built in areas that are known to flood every 10 or 20 years, and some homes are built on dirt hills that geologists warn are unsafe. Some sections of New Orleans were build below sea level, even though America has plenty of land above sea level.

By the way, have you looked into the issue of whether those levees were blown open with explosives?

There are no restrictions on the population growth of a city, and no plans for population growth, so roads and utility lines are constantly being torn up and rebuilt in futile attempts to cope with the increasing population.

We need to design our economic and government systems that city planning is given a higher priority. Businessmen and citizens should not be permitted to put homes and factories wherever they please. Every city already has zoning and other regulations to control growth, but these regulations are not designed very well, and sometimes businesses influence the regulations in an attempt to suppress their competition.

At the moment, the only people designing better cities are artists. Their only concern is the visual effect of their drawings, so their cities are unrealistic, but the artists can help you visualize some of our options.

A city could be small and compact to make it easy to travel within it and to get outside of it. It could be decorative and colorful, and surrounded by parks, gardens, farms, and lakes.
We could attach many homes together, and put them in clusters that are surrounded by gardens, walkways, and canals.
This high density of homes would allow people to travel mainly by foot, conveyor belts, and electric vehicles, and that would greatly reduce noise, dust, and pollution. Children could walk to school and to their friends.
Automobiles, trains, trucks, motorcycles, airplanes, and other transportation devices are noisy, filthy, and expensive. The asphalt and concrete roads are not very attractive, either. We may not be able to get rid of these devices, but we can reduce our dependence upon them, and that will simplify our lives and reduce the noise and pollution that we are subjected to.
What do we want the human race to become?
Animals don't understand the concept of a city, and they have no concern about their environment. They don't care if they live in a beautiful home and drink clean water, or whether they live in a toxic garbage dump and drink polluted water. The primary interest of an animal is feeding, fighting, and reproduction.

Humans are nothing more than animals with some additional intelligence, so it's not surprising that our primary interest in life is satisfying our animal-like cravings. We have an interest in our environment, but it is overpowered by our desire to entertain ourselves with material items, gambling casinos, sex, babies, sports events, television, games, toys, alcohol, and jewelry. Most people resist attempts to make their cities attractive.

We could bury all power and telephone lines; we could put tiles on the  sidewalks; we could make decorative bridges; and we could make all buildings and train stations attractive (a Moscow subway station is in the photo below). However, there is not much of an interest in making attractive cities, especially not in America.

We cannot make a dog care about its environment. Animals don't have whatever quality is necessary to care about such issues. Humans have a concern about their environment, but most people are much more concerned with other issues, such as food, sex, and rising to the top of the social hierarchy.

This lack of interest in the environment has nothing to do with intelligence or education; rather, it is due to our emotions; our personality. There are a lot of intelligent and educated businessmen, professors, and engineers who don't care much about their environment or their city. And there are lots of stupid and uneducated people who have a strong interest in living in a nice environment and a beautiful city.

In Part 2 of this series, I mentioned that we must decide who we are designing society for. Do we design society to please the majority of humans, most of whom don't care much about their environment, the quality of their food, or their city? Where should society be putting its resources? Should our emphasis be on the production of sports stadiums, personal automobiles, churches, high definition television, jewelry, race tracks, or gambling casinos? Who are we trying to please? What do we want the human race to become?

Do you want a city to be primarily asphalt, concrete, and rectangular buildings? Or do we want the entire city to consist of beautiful architecture surrounded by plants, ponds, and canals? All of the buildings in a city could be beautiful, and they could be surrounded with walkways, ponds, and flowers. A city could be a paradise; a mixture with homes, beautiful buildings, ponds, and gardens.

Humans are not identical. We have slightly different desires; slightly different personalities. Who among us are we going to design the world for? Who among us are we trying to please? And who among us are we willing to push aside and tell, "Just shut up and deal with it!"
People must be forced to deal with pollution
Toxic chemicals, plastics, and radioactive waste is a new form of pollution, but other forms of air and water pollution have been a problem for centuries. For example, in 1307 the English government tried to reduce the burning of coal in order to reduce air pollution in London.

Nobody wants pollution, but only a few people are willing to do something to reduce it. There is no enthusiasm to spend tax money on pollution control technology or recycling.

The lack of interest in the environment has allowed pollution to get worse since 1307. In 1952, for example, thousands of people in London died from air pollution. During the middle of the 20th century, thousands of Japanese suffered from mercury pollution. Today China is suffering from severe pollution, and China's air pollution is traveling all over the world.

Linfen, China, is currently considered to be the most polluted city on earth. The residents often wear masks, but this is not a solution.
The only solution to pollution is to get better quality humans in control of the world. We have to face the fact that the majority of people are not much better than animals. History has proven that most people simply don't care enough about pollution or recycling to do anything about it. Most chemical engineers don't care whether their chemicals are destroying animal and plant life; most businessmen don't care whether their factories are destroying the environment; and most ordinary citizens don't care whether they or their children are suffering genetic defects, illness, or hormone disorders from these chemicals.

Reports that chemicals are interfering with the development of children have been around for years, such as this one from December 2000 in which there is evidence that girls exposed to polybrominated biphenyl are menstruating at an abnormally early age:

Unfortunately, most people ignore these reports rather than demand more thorough scientific investigations into the effect the chemicals are having on us.

“Dude, stop the paranoia about chemicals! There are new photos of Tom Cruise and his baby! Check them out!”
If we design society to please the people who don't care about pollution and who resist attempts to recycle products, we are going to destroy ourselves and our planet. We must design our world to force these issues to be dealt with.
Organized religion must be prohibited
There is nothing wrong with people who want to follow a religion or believe in one or more gods. The only time religion creates problems for us is when humans create organizations that manipulate their members. When a religion collects money, manipulates holiday celebrations, encourages hatred of other people, influences government officials, and promotes war, they should not be classified as "religions"; rather, they should be considered criminal organizations.

Have you seen the John Hagee Ministries? Hagee claims to be a Christian, but instead of following the philosophy of Jesus, his goal is to turn his followers into Christian Zionists who help develop the nation of Israel.

Some people believe we should prohibit religion on the grounds that there is no supporting evidence for it, but there is no evidence for the "Big Bang" theory, either, and there is no evidence that the dinosaurs died when a meteor crashed into the earth, and there is no evidence that any woman has "women's intuition".

We don't need a law to prohibit women from believing that they have magic abilities, but if a woman were to form a Church Of Woman's Intuition, and if she encouraged her members to think that they are the "Chosen Women", and if she told her members that Christmas is the celebration of the birth of God's only daughter Christine, and if she demanded society provide special tax benefits for her church, then she should be described as a con artist; a criminal; a troublemaker.

Likewise, there is nothing wrong with a scientist who wants to believe that the universe got started in a Big Bang, but if he were to create a Big Bang Church, and if he encouraged his members to believe that they are the "Chosen Scientists" and that all other scientists will be sent to a Black Hole when they die, and if he were to tell his followers that Christmas is the celebration of the anniversary of the Big Bang, then he should be described as a con artist.

It doesn't matter if people want to speculate about life. However, we must draw the line between innocent speculations and organizations that manipulate people. Organized religions are not philosophies about life, so they should not be classified as "religions". Rather, they are organizations, and they have been detrimental to every society all throughout history. None of the organized religions have provided sensible leadership to their members. Even today they are silent about 9/11, the world wars, and the HoloHoax. Organized religions are parasitic; detrimental; abusive. Churches should be used only for social events, such as weddings, meetings, and parties. Organized religions should be suppressed.

Secret agencies must be forbidden
Every nation has a secret agency, or several of them, such as the CIA, MI6, KGB, and Mossad. Most people believe that the secret agencies are necessary in order to protect the nation, but where is there evidence that a nation has benefited from these agencies?

There are only a few situations in which secret agencies might be beneficial to a nation. One is when the nation is under attack by a very large group, and there are only a small number of people willing to defend the nation. In such a case, the small group is vulnerable, and so the government could keep that small group secretive so that they could hide among the other citizens.

Many people justify secret agencies as a way of preventing war, but there is no evidence that they are doing anything to prevent war or other disasters. For example, America's secret agencies did not protect us from the September 11 attack, the Apollo moon landing hoax, the assassination of President Kennedy, the attack on the USS Liberty, the breaking of the New Orleans levees, and lots of other crimes. Furthermore, the secret agencies are doing nothing to correct the Zionist propaganda in our history books about the HoloHoax, the creation of Israel, and the world wars. The secret agencies also do nothing to protect us from suspicious fires, bridge failures, snipers, airplane accidents, and explosions. Would America or Britain be worse today if we had never created any secret agencies?

The primary problem with secret agencies is that nobody can be certain who is in control of the employees, who the employees are, what the employees are doing, or what their true goals are. They may as well wear bags over their heads. Each employee knows only what he is told, and he cannot be certain that he has been told the truth. Even the managers cannot be certain that their employees are telling the truth.

Police detectives can investigate crimes without such absurd levels of secrecy that nobody knows who works for the agency, what their budget is, or how their money is being spent.

The larger the agency, the worst this problem becomes. The secrecy allows these agencies to be infiltrated. Once an agency is infiltrated, the other employees can be fed false information. They can also be tricked into doing illegal or embarrassing acts or initiation ceremonies, which allows them to be blackmailed.

Have you heard Kay Griggs talk about the initiation ceremonies that the military leaders are pushed into? Watch the "Desperate Wives" videos:
One of the reasons Americans feel a need for secret agencies is because our police departments are ineffective in dealing with organized crime. Many people assume that only a nationwide and secretive police agency is capable of stopping large crime networks. However, this assumption is false.
The police departments have been aware of organized crime for decades, and they know the names and addresses of many of the members. In this photo, Al Capone is talking with the deputy police chief at the police station. The police did not know the details, but they knew enough to stop the crime networks. So, why didn't they stop any of them?

The primary reason seems to be because America is dominated by  "Wretched Refuse". This has caused two serious problems:

1) Many of the police, judges, labor unions, businessmen, and government officials are working with the organized crime networks. Some organized crime members turned on their gang after they were arrested, and they admitted to routinely bribing policemen, judges, and politicians. The American people are not as honest as they claim to be.

2) The American court system was designed to make it extremely difficult to convict somebody of a crime. Most of the immigrants to America had a powerful "feel sorry for me" attitude, and they had a tendency to defend the criminals, not the police. The inscription at the base of the Statue of Liberty is not a joke.

It is entirely possible to design a legal system that allows the police to eliminate organized crime networks. There is no reason for a law enforcement agency to operate in such secrecy that not even the employees know what is going on within the agency. However, this requires changing our attitudes towards crime.

Once again, we have to ask ourselves, who do we want to design our society for? What do we want to accomplish? Are we going to continue promoting the fantasy that there is such a thing as an "Underdog" who needs protection? Are we going to continue promoting the defiant, angry, bitter attitude that we find at the base of the Statue of Liberty?

Incidentally, some Europeans boast about being better people than the Americans, but the Americans came from Europe, so we could describe Europe as a breeding ground for freaks. England's solution to crime was to ship people to the American colonies and to Australia, but that's like sweeping garbage into your neighbor's house.

The Europeans are no longer shipping their misfits to America or Australia, so the misfits are accumulating in Europe. Will the Europeans ever do something about this problem?

We need a United Nations that works properly
The world needs an organization to resolve worldwide problems, but the existing United Nations is worthless. Actually, the UN appears to be dominated by the Zionist crime network. For example, in 1975 the majority of nations agreed to Resolution 3379. Like most political documents, it didn't say much, but it endorsed a critical statement about Zionism:
"...which most severely condemned Zionism as a threat to world peace and security and called upon all countries to oppose this racist and imperialist ideology,"
This resolution had no effect, and it was repealed in 1991, because Israel will not tolerate any criticism of itself or Zionism. Israel is not supposed to be in control of the UN, but the Zionist crime network has been dominating America, Britain, and other nations for decades. They keep the American and British citizens ignorant about Zionism, and they use our nations as attack dogs to suppress any nation that dares to criticize Israel or Zionism.
We cannot allow any nation to dominate the planet
Even if we were to eliminate the Zionist crime network, the current UN would not function properly because it would be dominated by America. The concept of a United Nations will not work when one nation is allowed to dominate it.

In part 2 of this series, I suggested that political parties should be forbidden, and that a nation should be under the control of independent people, not political parties. The same concept applies to the entire world. Specifically, the leaders of the UN should be independent citizens who are selected according to their abilities rather than according to the nation they belong to. The world should be dominated by people, not by nations.

People must be forced to share resources
Rivers, oceans, and lakes are shared by many different groups of people, and we already have a problem of cities and nations abusing these resources. The natural selfishness of humans requires that we design governments to force people into being considerate to their neighbors.
International transactions should be simplified
Mailing packages between nations and doing business between nations is more difficult than it needs to be because of tariffs, border inspections, and differences in laws, monetary systems, and regulations. Governments need to be designed to prevent these fights and senseless differences in regulations.
The economy needs better supervision
Nobody benefits when businesses manipulate people into purchasing products and services, and it is destructive to society when businesses manipulate children, or when they push people into purchasing destructive products, such as as drugs and gambling. Products should be designed according to whether they have some value to human life, not according to whether they can make a profit. Businesses should also be prohibited from manipulating children, school curriculum, and holiday celebrations.

A lot of the problems we are suffering from are the result of businessmen whose primary concern in life is making profit, feeling important, and fighting with other businesses. It is very important that we get a better group of people in control of our economy. This is a complicated issue, so the economy will be discussed in some other article.

Consumers should not determine products
Decisions have to be made on which products to manufacture, and what type of formats and standards the products should follow. For example, years ago there was a dispute over the VHS and Beta videotape format. Today there is a dispute over DVD formats and high definition video.

The current method of resolving these issues is to let businesses compete with one another for sales. This method is based on the theory that businesses will compete with each other in a respectable manner, and that the intelligent consumers will make wise decisions and drive out the incompetent and dishonest businessmen. However, history has proven that this theory is as nonsensical as a perpetual motion machine. Businesses tend to fight and cheat, and most consumers are too technically incompetent, dumb, and/or irresponsible to make wise decisions.

For example, there are accusations that General Motors, Standard Oil, and Firestone conspired to get rid of the electric train system that was being developed for Los Angeles during the early 20th century. If these accusations are true, it shows that consumers didn't do anything to stop it, and neither did the government, police agencies, or other businesses.

Allowing businesses to fight over technology and standards is wasting a lot of resources and engineering talent. As technology becomes more complex, this issue becomes more significant. Computers, robots, airplanes, and train systems are becoming increasingly complex, so this fighting and cheating will become increasingly wasteful.

Imagine trying to get a personal robot serviced. A robot will have more parts than an automobile, and it will be more complex. How will a robot repair shop deal with hundreds of different models, brands, and standards? And imagine that America still exists when robots become available, and that the Americans are still refusing to switch to the metric system. In such a case, the robots made in America would require a different set of tools, parts, screws, and bolts. We need to develop a better method of resolving issues with technology and standards.
What are our priorities?
An engineer cannot design a "perfect" automobile, airplane, or computer. He has to make decisions on what features are most important, and which features can be sacrificed. Engineers have to set priorities. For example, should automobile engineers give top priority to the visual appearance of the automobile? Or should they be more concerned with low maintenance, low price, or luxury features?

Many people have complained that American automobile companies put more priority on visual effects and luxury features, while foreign automobile companies put more emphasis on low maintenance, long life, and reliability. Whether this philosophical difference actually exists is debatable; the point is that engineers must make these decisions, and it appears as if American engineers are giving top priority to titillating consumers.

The 1959 Cadillac Eldorado had large "fins" and covers for the rear wheels. Here is an ad for it.
Designing a government is the same as designing an automobile. We cannot design a perfect government. We have to decide what our top priorities are, and what we are willing to sacrifice. For example, if we decide to make city planning and pollution reduction to be one of our top priorities, we have to sacrifice some "freedom". How much freedom are we willing to sacrifice? Should pollution restrictions apply to barbecues? Cigarettes? How much freedom should people have in building or modifying their homes?

To the simple human mind, it seems as if we can design a government that gives everybody everything they want, but designing a government for one purpose requires we sacrifice some other feature. We must make a decision on what we want human life to be, who we are trying to please, and what we are willing to sacrifice.

The elimination of war and militaries should be a top priority
The current attitude of every nation is to prepare for war, as explained at the beginning of this document. However, even if no nation starts another war, we are wasting a lot of resources and engineering talent on the development, stockpiling, and maintenance of weapons and large military forces. A more sensible attitude would be to make changes to the world to reduce the weapons and militaries.

We may not be able to completely eliminate militaries, but we could certainly reduce the problem. However, something will have to change. We can't keep everything as it is today and at the same time expect militaries to vanish. Something must change in the world, but what are you willing to sacrifice? Here is one possible scenario to consider.

How about a world of small, semi-independent nations?
Forget about the world as it is today, and ignore the dilemma of how we make the transition from the world today to the scenario I am about to discuss. Imagine that the entire Earth is vacant land, and we are starting from scratch. The purpose is to show you one of the possible ways of eliminating militaries.

Imagine that we divide up the most pleasant areas of the world into a small nations that have a maximum population of perhaps one million people. Every nation would be physically isolated from the others by vacant land. Every nation would have enough land to provide for its own food. The nations would only import food that they could not grow in their particular climate.

The nations in mountainous or dry areas would have more land area than the nations in flat, temperate areas, but they would all have the same maximum human population. Nations in hilly areas would have to consist of several small cities, but nations on flat land could consist of only one, large city if they desired such a situation.

The map below is meant only to help you visualize the concept of small nations separated by vacant land; this map is not intended to be an actual plan for the world. Each red, circular area is a nation, and the area between the nations belongs to the entire world.

The areas that are especially beautiful, such as Yellowstone National Park, would be classified as World Parks that belong to the entire world rather than a nation. The undesirable land areas would also belong to the entire world.

Each nation would be forbidden to expand their boundaries. A nation could let their population decrease, but they would not be allowed to go over a certain maximum. Immigration would have to be controlled; immigration would be by invitation only.

If these separate nations were to behave in the same selfish manner that nations are behaving today, it would be extremely annoying and wasteful. Imagine having to fill out forms to mail a package from one nation to another, as we do today. Or imagine trying to do business between nations when they have different rules, tariffs, and other regulations. Or imagine trying to travel between nations if each one required customs inspections.

To prevent these problems, each nation would be only semi-independent. They would be completely independent with clothing styles, food, music, architecture, and other social issues, but independence would not be permitted in regards to technical issues, such as electric power, television signals, airplane maintenance. The nations would also be required to use the same monetary system, calendar, number system, and ideally the same language, or at least the same secondary language. A person would need only one form of identification, and it would be valid everywhere in the world. Nobody would need passports.

Each nation would be allowed to determine what race their citizens are. No nation would be under obligation to allow other races to immigrate into their nation. The end result is that one nation might consist entirely of a certain type of Chinese, another might be a group of Bavarian Germans, and another might choose to be a mixture of races.

Every nation could also make their own decisions on how they want their homes and cities to be. For example, one nation might be designed for private homes on private plots of land with privately owned automobiles, and another nation may prefer to experiment with cities that are like college campuses in which there is no private property, and public transportation provides for almost all of the transportation.

Each nation could determine what type of food they wanted to promote. For example, one nation might eat cows, cow milk, and alcoholic beverages, and they might prohibit the eating of cats, horses, dogs, and rats. Another nation might permit the eating of dogs and horses and prohibit alcohol and animal milk. Another nation might prohibit dogs and cats as pets. No nation would be allowed to force their beliefs on another.

Another way to understand this concept of semi-independent nations is to imagine if the cities within your nation were physically separated from each other and allowed to be independent in regards to social issues. Because all of the cities belong to the same nation, their economies would function as one economy, but each city would be different from a social perspective.

The United Nations
These semi-independent nations would need an organization to provide supervision, similar to the United Nations. The current UN doesn't function properly partly because the world is dominated by a few giant nations and by the Zionist crime network, but in a world in which all nations are virtually the same size, an organization similar to the UN would become practical.

The UN would coordinate the economies so that the nations function as if they are one, giant economy. Businesses could have branches in different nations, just as they do today, but it would be much easier with these semi-independent nations because there would be no differences in regulations, laws, or other business practices. From the point of view of businessmen, the separate nations are separate cities of a world-wide nation.

Each nation would deal with transportation within its own cities, but the UN would be responsible for handling the trains, boats, airlines, and roads that connect the nations together. People and freight could travel to any nation without any concern about paperwork, regulations, or passports.

High-speed trains would be especially practical for shipping freight and passengers between nations because there would not be any small towns along the route to slow them down.
The UN would manage the vacant land between the nations, the oceans, the large rivers, the Panama Canal, and all of the World Parks. Projects that are too expensive for individual nations or businesses, such as the launching of satellites into orbit, or projects that affect several nations, such as large dams on big rivers, would be handled by the UN. In some cases the UN might hire some of its own engineers or construction crews, but in most cases the UN would coordinate the activities between different businesses.

The UN would make sure the nations are not polluting one another; that they are not producing military weapons; and that their businesses are not cheating other nations. The UN would also prevent the wealthy nations from using people from poor nations as servants or cheap labor.

Some nations will have a lot of oil, and others will have a lot of iron ore, and others might have access to enormous hydroelectric or solar power. However, no nation or business would be able to own or manipulate any of the world's resources. Every person and every nation would be required to contribute to the world. No nation or person would be allowed to be a parasite that uses its supply of resources to live off the work of others.

The UN could have its own land area, thereby making it a nation, also, but computers and modern communication technology allow the UN to operate without its own land. Every nation would provide their own UN building within their nation, and every nation would select some of their citizens to become UN employees. All of the UN employees and buildings in all of the nations would be the "United Nations". The nations would also contribute people to inspection teams whenever the UN needed to check on weapons development, pollution, or other problems.

There would be several different "criminal nations"
As mentioned in the Dumbing Down series, jail is absurd, and most people resist killing criminals, so by creating a few "criminal nations", every nation could dispose of their badly behaved people without much guilt. We could have several different criminal nations, such as one for the violent people, and another for people who commit trivial crimes.
How would the UN deal with badly behaved nations?
The American attitude towards dealing with badly behaved government officials is to assassinate the leaders, torture the citizens with economic embargoes, and drop bombs on the nation. This absurd attitude seems to be coming from the Zionists who are tricking the Americans and Europeans into destroying themselves and other nations.

The current attitude towards dealing with badly behaved businessmen is to make their business pay a small fine. This policy is not preventing abuse by businessmen.

In a world of semi-independent nations, none of the nations would be allowed to develop a military force, so when government officials are caught behaving badly, such as when they are allowing their nation to pollute their neighbors, the UN would not have to use any military force to deal with the problem. Instead, they would have the authority to demand the nation select new leaders.

If the UN determines that the government leaders are merely incompetent and are making honest mistakes, the UN would demand that the leaders be replaced and be barred forever from getting another top government position, but if the UN determines that they were deliberately misbehaving, they would be sent to a criminal nation.

This same policy would apply to businessmen who abuse other nations. Specifically, the UN would have the authority to demand that the businessmen be replaced if they are merely incompetent or making honest mistakes, and the UN would have the authority to send them to a criminal nation if they determine that they were deliberately misbehaving.

The UN would have the attitude that leadership positions are a privilege, and if somebody abuses that privilege, they are removed permanently. There is no shortage of people, so we don't have to recycle the badly behaved people.

The UN would be allowed to put together teams of inspectors and police forces, but the teams would be required to be temporary, so they would have to disband after a certain period of time. If another team was needed later, the team would have to consist of a certain percentage of new people, thereby making it difficult for the team members to get to know one another and conspire together. Furthermore, the teams would consist of people from every nation, which would make it difficult for anybody to get control of one of the teams.

The UN would have to prevent jealousy and fights by looking into accusations of cheating and corruption, and if they determine that a nation is suffering due to their own behavior, they must stand up to that nation and tell them to accept what they are. For example, if one of the Japanese nations decide to work six days a week, 16 hours a day, then they will have a lot more material wealth than the nations that work fewer hours. The nations that want more leisure time will have to accept this.

The UN would not make any attempt to distribute the wealth from one nation to another. Each nation would be told to take care of themselves, be responsible for themselves, be considerate of other nations, and accept the life they make for themselves.

Advantages of semi-independent nations
If the world consisted of thousands of small, semi-independent nations of equal size, it would be impossible for any nation to dominate the world or develop a significant military force. It is conceivable that some nations conspire together, and it is conceivable that large, organized crime gangs form in many nations, but if we can create a United Nations organization that watches for these conspiracies and organized crime gangs, it would be very difficult for them to get away with much abuse.

It should be noted that organized crime networks are constantly being identified and exposed. Police detectives, government officials, and even ordinary citizens have been complaining about the Gambino family, the Zionist crime network, and other organized crime gangs for decades. It's impossible to conduct large-scale crimes without people noticing the crimes and identifying some of the people within the crime network. These gangs are not getting away with their crimes because nobody can figure out what they're doing. Rather, they get away with their crimes because most people don't care.

The September 11 attack should make this concept extremely obvious. Some of us have been pointing out for years that 9/11 was a false flag operation, and that the Zionist crime network was the primary group behind it. However, the majority of scientists, engineers, professors, policemen, firemen, and military officers are lacking whatever mental qualities are necessary to face this issue.

If we create a United Nations with the same sort of animal-like, selfish, emotionally disturbed people who currently dominate the nations today, then of course a world of semi-independent nations will suffer from corruption, organized crime gangs, and inefficiency.

Creating a better government structure is only part of the solution to our problems. The other part of the solution is getting better people in control of the world. History shows that most people have a mind that is suitable only to primitive life; they cannot handle the problems we face today. If we continue to allow these intelligent monkeys to dominate our economy, government, media, and schools, we're going to continue to suffer.
Disadvantages of semi-independent nations
A disadvantage is that it would be difficult for people to emigrate to another nation. Immigration would have to be controlled. If you wanted to emigrate to another nation, you would have to ask the nation to accept you. You could not simply move to their nation just because you wanted to.

In order for you to be accepted by another nation, the other nation would have to approve of you, but why would they want you? You would have to truly want to join their society, and they would have to want you.

As discussed in Part 2 of this series, most of the immigration that is occurring in the world today is abusive, not constructive. Most immigrants are looking for money, or trying to get away from the police, or trying to get away from ridicule. Most of them have no desire to join the nation they are moving to. This is why the immigrants rarely adapt to their new society; instead, they continue to behave as if they are still in their original nation.

In a world of semi-independent nations, immigration would occur only when people truly want to join another nation. For example, the nations that promote individually owned automobiles will attract people interested in that lifestyle, and the nations that provide public transportation will attract people who want to avoid personal vehicles. Nations that prohibit pets would attract people who don't want to live with animals, and nations that allow pets will attract people who enjoy animals. Some nations may attract a lot of scientists, some may attract lots of computer programmers, and others may attract a lot of musicians.

We have opportunities, but will we use them?
There are lots of ways to design nations, cities, governments, and the world. We are not helpless. We can begin the process of improving the world whenever we find enough people who want to start discussing these issues and start experimenting with our societies. Unfortunately, the majority of people have so far shown no interest in doing anything except titillating themselves.
Our obsession with goals is inappropriate today
One of the reasons it's difficult to get people to agree on how to improve the world is because most of the population is certain that they must have something in particular in order to be happy. Any attempt to change the world will cause these people to worry that they won't be able to be happy because it will require that they change their goals in life.

As discussed in part 2 of this series, the most exciting thing for humans and animals is the pursuit of our goals, not the achievement of our goals. Unfortunately, most people make the mistake of assuming that achieving the goal will bring them happiness. This causes them to resist attempts to change their goals.

For example, if a man has set a goal for himself of owning a large, single-family home, a large plot of land, and several automobiles, he will resist attempts to create cities in which that type of home is non-existent or difficult to acquire. He will complain that he cannot possibly be satisfied with life unless he can achieve his goal. He will behave like a child having a tantrum:

"No! I cannot be happy in that type of city! I must have my own home! I must have my own plot of land! I must have at least one personal automobile! I cannot possibly be happy with the society you are suggesting!"
This obsession with a goal was an acceptable behavioral tendency in 20,000 BC because in that era the only goals that men would set for themselves were finding food, raising a family, and defending their family from predators. They would frequently achieve their goals by finding some food, or chasing away a wolf, but the next day they would have to start over and pursue the same goals again. This endless pursuit of goals kept them happy in what appears to us to be a horrible environment.

Today the obsession men have with achieving goals can become absurd -- and destructive -- if they set ridiculous goals for themselves, and if they foolishly believe that they must achieve their goals. Many men have become obsessed over acquiring specific houses, boats, airplanes, automobiles, jobs, fame, or sports awards. They convince themselves that they must actually achieve these goals in order to be happy. As a result, any attempt to take these goals away from them results in anger or tantrums.

Women also become obsessed with goals, but because of their submissive personality, they often become convinced that they need men to provide them with whatever it is they're obsessed with. Many women will have tantrums if their husbands don't provide them with diamonds, for example, or if they are not provided with a certain type of house or lifestyle.

Every adult should be able to understand this issue of obsessing over goals simply by looking at their own childhood. It seems that everybody becomes obsessed to some extent with something during his childhood.

When I was perhaps eight years old, I often fantasized about having two clear, Lucite rectangles that were about 2 feet on each side and about 8 feet tall. One would be filled with M&Ms, and the other was a solid block of chocolate. Years later I saw the Beverly Hillbillies mansion on television, and I was fascinated by the staircase in their mansion. For many, many years I wanted to have a mansion with that type of staircase.

I also loved to climb trees, and I wished I could jump from one branch to another, or fly like a bird. I knew I couldn't, so I would dream of someday having an airplane.

Fortunately, I slowly began to understand that it makes no difference if I achieve any of my goals, and I also realized that if I had achieved my goals, I would have discovered that they were not what I thought they would be. For example, when I climbed up into a tree and sat in the branches, it was very peaceful and quiet. I assumed an airplane would be similar, but later I discovered that small airplanes are actually noisy, cramped, and uncomfortable.

Do you need your own kitchen and dining room?
If people are obsessed with having a particular type of home, a particular automobile, or a particular lifestyle, they will resist attempts to make changes to society. In order to make a better world, we must get used to the idea that some of our goals must change. To help you understand this, consider a society in which homes do not have kitchens or dining rooms; a society in which the people are expected to eat at restaurants or have picnics. Can you give this type of society some serious consideration? Or do your obsessions with dining rooms, breakfast rooms, and kitchens make it impossible for you?

There are several different ways to set up a city in which people don't need their own kitchens or dining rooms. One method is to design the economy so that restaurants are classified as a government service, similar to how we consider schools to be a service that the government should provide.

In this scenario, the government would provide lots of restaurants throughout a city, and the government would handle all of the finances, maintenance, and repairs. If a person wanted to operate a restaurant, he would apply for the job as a restaurant manager. He would be an employee, just like the employees of a public school. He would not need to invest any money or buy any equipment. He would decide what type of food he wanted to offer, and he would have control over the decor of the restaurant.

One manager might decide to operate a sushi bar, a Turkish delicatessen, a raw foods bar, or a bakery.

Other managers may provide only food "to go" for people in a hurry, or who want food for picnics.

Some managers might restrict their restaurant to adults only.

Some managers might chose to operate an outdoor cafe, and some might combine the serving of food with singing, dancing, or other entertainment. Some managers might prefer to offer only fruits, sprouts, juices, drinks, and other snacks.
Some managers might prefer to operate formal dining rooms, and they may require reservations so that they can plan for the upcoming meals.

Some managers might offer only the equivalent of "prix fixe" menus in which there are no menu options, and the menu changes according to the manager's desires.

Because the restaurant managers would not have to pay rent or deal with other financial issues, they could work a normal work week. The restaurant would be closed during their days off, and when they were feeling sick. This type of arrangement would make operating a restaurant the same as every other job.

By removing the risks and stress that is inherent with restaurants today, more people would be willing to get involved with operating a restaurant. A city would need a lot of restaurants in order to feed the entire population, so it is imperative that people be attracted to the job of operating a restaurant.

The citizens would not have to pay for meals in this scenario. Since everybody has to eat, the restaurants would be available to everybody at no charge. The success or failure of a restaurant would depend upon whether people were interested in the restaurant, not according to profits. If a restaurant did not attract many people, the manager would have to find some other job, and somebody else would be given the opportunity to manage the restaurant.

The restaurant managers would not have to pay for anything, either. Each manager would simply request whatever supplies and equipment that he needed, and unless he was asking for something in short supply, he would be provided with whatever he asked for. If an item was in short supply, the managers would have to take turns having access to it.

Some people might like cooking their own meals once in a while, so the city could provide kitchens and dining areas for people to use when they were in the mood to make their own meals. It would be similar to how parks provide barbecue pits.

This system of providing food would not work well unless it was very easy for people to get to the restaurants. The cities that we have today would make it impractical to use this system, especially during bad weather. A city would have to be designed with this system in mind. For example, homes would have to be clustered together rather than scattered haphazardly throughout the city, and restaurants would have to be built within the clusters so that people can walk or ride an elevator to the restaurants.

Restaurants would also have to be scattered throughout the area where people were working in the city. People would have to be able to get to the restaurants even during bad weather, and that would require covered walkways and transportation that is easy and quick, such as conveyor belts or electric vehicles.

There would be a lot of advantages to this type of food distribution system, some of which are: 

• Efficiency. It is much more efficient for restaurants to provide meals. It also simplifies the delivery of food and the disposal of garbage.
• Socializing. People would be forced to leave their home in order to eat, thereby encouraging people to socialize. For example, when a man is finished working, instead of going home to his family for dinner, he would meet friends or family at a restaurant. When the weather is nice, he might pick up some food and meet his friends or family at a park.
• More leisure time. By eliminating the kitchen and dining rooms, people wouldn't have to waste time shopping for food, preparing meals, or cleaning up the mess.
• Better food. When people cook for themselves, they tend to make simple meals, but the restaurants would provide a wide variety of food, and it would be easy for the restaurants to offer extremely fresh food, such as meat from animals that were slaughtered that same day, and bread that was made from freshly ground grains.
• Artistic variety. Instead of eating meals in the same room of our home day after day, restaurants would provide a lot of variety. And restaurants can afford to provide much more expensive decorations, art, stained-glass windows, flooring materials, and gardens.

Responsible humans have a lot of options
As you can imagine, this system of providing meals would not work for the type of people that inhabit the world today. This system is actually in use right now on some luxury cruise ships. These cruise ships provide several different types of restaurants for their guests, and the food is free. Unfortunately, when provided with free food, a lot of people will waste a lot of food. This also happens at smorgasbords.

If the world was dominated by better quality humans, we could simplify our lives in a lot of ways. We could offer food for free, and we could provide everybody with a home to live in for free, and we give every home free electricity, water, and sewage. Providing these items for free would save everybody a lot of time, and it would save resources.

Unfortunately, when provided with free food, electricity, or other resources, most people will waste a lot of it. The wasting of resources is one of the reasons that communism is impractical. For example, some apartment buildings in Moscow were designed to provide free heat to residents. Since nobody was paying for the heat, nobody cared if they wasted heat by opening their windows. During the winter of 2006, some of the residents were being asked to keep their windows closed, but most people truly don't care about wasting resources.

This selfish behavior can also be seen with rental cars and other rental equipment. Many people deliberately abuse rental equipment because they realize that they don't have to worry about repairs or long-term damage.

Can you handle "freedom"?
A lot of our time and resources are wasted in an attempt to control the badly behaved people. If everybody was responsible, we would not need to waste money on water meters, electric power meters, or security devices. Devices such as water meters should be used only to help a society understand and plan its use of resources, and to identify leaks in the system. In an ideal world, we would not need to treat people as irresponsible jerks who need constant monitoring and supervision.

Imagine living in a world in which you could eat anywhere in your city with no concern about money, wallets, credit cards, or finances. Would you be able to handle that type of freedom? How about if you lived in a city in which there were no water meters or electric meters in the homes? Would you be able to handle that freedom? How about if you lived in a city in which there was no money at all? What if everything was free? What if you were expected to take turns sharing the scarce resources? Would you be able to do it?

When people behave like animals, we must design our societies to monitor, supervise, and control their behavior. Selfish, neurotic, or irresponsible people cannot be provided with very much freedom. If people were more responsible, they would need less supervision; they could be provided with more freedom.

What would happen if a nation provided free food?
Imagine that a nation was created in which food, electricity, and certain other products and services were provided for free. It is conceivable that there are enough people alive today who would enjoy that type of lifestyle, and who are responsible enough to handle that level of freedom, so imagine they get together to form such a nation. Their nation would be successful in the beginning, but how long would their success last?

Their nation would start to deteriorate as soon as they started having babies. The reason is because many of their children would be incapable of handling such freedom, and so the nation would have to slowly increase the restrictions on people in order to reduce the waste and abuse. Eventually they would degrade into the same type of animal-like nations we have today in which nothing is free, and there are security cameras, policemen, and thousands of laws to control the badly behaved people.

An advanced nation requires advanced people. Unfortunately, all animals and plants produce a lot of substandard and defective offspring. If a nation doesn't deal with this issue, they will destroy themselves.

What should we do about the misfits?
People who waste food, grope women in trains, or ride skateboards on public sidewalks, are humans just like the rest of us; they are "nice" people. It's very difficult for a society to do anything about these people.
An example are these two men who are playing a "practical joke" on automobile drivers by pretending to stretch a wire across the road, which causes the drivers to stop out of fear that they will hit the wire. Pranks would not be the slightest bit amusing if a significant percentage of the population was doing them. What should we do with people who behave this way?

There are also people who do extremely risky things, and when they get hurt, they expect society to pay their medical bills, and they expect doctors and surgeons to rush to help them. Have you seen some of these people?

And what should we do with the people that think they will resolve their disputes with what they refer to as a "one-on-one" fight:

There is no dividing line between criminals and non-criminals, or between people who behave properly and people who don't. Rather, there is a continuous spectrum from one extreme to the other. Every society has to make decisions on which behavior is proper, and we have to deal with the people who don't follow the rules. A solution that people may be willing to accept is to provide separate nations for these misfits.

There is no practical way at the moment for any nation to deal with the misfits. Jail doesn't solve the problem, and most people would not tolerate killing them, but people might be willing to send them to a special nation where they can live the rest of their lives.

The irritating people used to be killed
Animals and humans have a "temper". When irritated to a certain amount, we react with anger, and we attack whatever the source of irritation is. Unfortunately, this crude emotion is triggered whenever we become frustrated. As a result, we often find ourselves becoming angry with inanimate objects, such as our computer, or in inappropriate situations.

Thousands of years ago this emotion helped to keep the human race in good genetic health. The behaved badly people would trigger this emotion in other people, and that would cause the behaved badly people to be yelled at, attacked, chased out of society, or murdered. Monkeys have also been observed to attack and even murder members of their society.

Today we control our temper when we encounter irritating people, but these emotions developed for a good reason. The only humans who survived the competition for life were the ones who had this temper, and the reason this temper was vital is because it helped to suppress the defective people. Therefore, since we don't want to follow these animal-like emotions, then we must find an alternative method of dealing with these irritating people, such as sending them to their own nation. 

We have amazing opportunities!
The problems the human world is suffering from are not coming from the devil, or from mysterious concepts, such as poverty or ignorance. Our problems are due to the animal-like nature of the human mind. Education can help the situation, but an animal is still an animal even when it is educated.

We are not helpless; we have tremendous opportunities available to us. There are lots of ways to design an economy, a school system, and a food distribution system. We can design cities in thousands of different ways. We could be working and living in a paradise. Our cities could be beautiful buildings mixed with beautiful gardens. We can do something to improve our world whenever we find enough people who want to discuss these issues and do something about it.