Hufschmid's main page
Page for this series
Philosophy page

 
Creating a better society

Part 1: 
Is it really possible to create a better society?

23 March 2012

C
O
N
T
E
N
T
S
Introduction
Imagine a city of cruise ships
Supervising a City of Castles
Why don't conservatives provide good leadership?
The freedom to demonstrate is outdated
Consider changing the course of the human race!
Introduction
 
It is now March 2012, and it should be obvious that there will soon be so many millions of us who are disgusted with the people who are lying about 9/11, the Holocaust, the Apollo Moon landing, and the world wars, that we will be able to arrest them. But what do we do then? Do we simply put them in jail for a while, replace the corrupt officials with honest officials, and then continue with life as it is right now? My suggestion is to start experimenting with new societies.

This is the first part of a series of articles that will explain my ideas. Since this series is intended to encourage you to actually help change the course of the human race rather than merely give you something to think about, I will explain my ideas in more detail. Sometimes I will explain the same concept in different ways, so I may seem to repeat myself, but I want to ensure that you understand my opinions. I don't get much feedback from whoever looks at my articles, so I'm not sure which concepts need clarification.

It makes no difference if you like my suggestions. I disagree with some of my earlier opinions, and I will certainly develop some new opinions in the future. The point I want to make in this series is that the human race is not helpless. We have the intelligence necessary to create different government systems, school systems, and economic systems. All we have to do is find enough people with the desire to discuss these issues and the courage to climb into a covered wagon and explore the unknown.
Imagine a city of luxury cruise ships
 
What is a "City of Castles"?
My preference for a society is what I refer to as a "City of Castles".  I've described some aspects of this concept in other files, but in this series I will provide more details to show you that this concept is realistic, and I will give you my idea for a government for this type of society. 

I think the best analogy to help you understand what your life would actually be like if you were living in my City of Castles is to imagine what it would be like to spend your entire life on a luxury cruise ship. One problem with this cruise ship analogy is that passengers do not work on the ship. Rather, they purchase a ticket and are pampered by the crew. The cruise is just a brief vacation for them. Therefore, to make the analogy more accurate, imagine a cruise ship is offering a free ride to whoever is willing to work on the ship, and they can spend their entire lives on the ship, including getting married and raising families. Another problem with the cruise ship analogy is that ships are extremely cramped, so imagine a cruise ship that is unrealistically large and spacious.
 
 


Imagine a free cruise in which the passengers have jobs
 
The passengers must clean their own cabins and contribute some work to the ship, such as helping the crew in the restaurants or the engine room, or providing some of the entertainment, or providing scuba diving lessons.
It may seem absurd to expect some of the passengers to provide entertainment or scuba diving lessons, but keep in mind that this is an analogy for a city. It would be practical for a city to provide itself with such services because there would be tens of thousands of people to choose from.
In return for working on the ship, all of the passengers are provided with their basic necessities for free. They don't have to pay for their cabin, food, water, or electricity.

They don't own anything on the ship; are not responsible for maintenance issues; and have no influence over the ship's policies or its future. They are submissive "guest workers", not owners, kings, or dictators.

The passengers have free access to a variety of lounges, restaurants, sports, social activities, educational lectures, and tours.

Since passengers can live forever on the ship and raise families, the children are provided with their own special activities, restaurants, and recreational areas.

There are also special areas for the elderly.

The passengers are provided with laundry services, pools, Jacuzzis, exercise equipment, and computers.

The ship's management is responsible for all of the maintenance issues. The passengers help with the work, but they don't have to make the decisions of what to do. The passengers are just workers who follow orders.

Cruise ships are designed for people, not businesses

One reason I think the cruise ship analogy can help you understand life in the City of Castles is because there is a major difference between a cruise ship and all of our cities as they exist today. Specifically, our cities are not designed for human life. They are haphazard collections of homes, businesses, roads, train tracks, factories, and farms. Our cities developed inadvertently for shopping, business activity, and tourism. By comparison, cruise ships are specifically designed for the passengers of the ship, not for tourism, business activity, or shopping.

We feel comfortable and relaxed inside of our home, but we are not so comfortable in our cities. We are attacked by beggars and vendors as we walk around our city, and virtually every business, museum, and activity wants us to give them some money. Furthermore, businesses don't want us to remain very long. We are just profit opportunities to them, so after they have extracted money from us, they want us to leave so that the next customer can be serviced. Our cities are also noisy, ugly, and filthy. There are also homeless people living in our streets. Our cities are so undesirable that most of us spend most of our leisure time in our homes, not our cities.

By comparison, a cruise ship is designed to have so many attractive and pleasant lounges, restaurants, lectures, recreational opportunities, and other activities, that the people prefer to spend their time on a ship rather than sitting in their cabin. The ship offers these activities for free in order to make life on the ship even more pleasant. Furthermore, the ship will not tolerate beggars, homeless people, illegal aliens, vendors, telemarketers, crime, or religious fanatics who travel door to door to push their religion on the passengers. The ship is also designed to be very attractive so all of the electric, plumbing, and other utilities are out of sight.

Why not apply the same philosophy to a city? Why not design our cities to be as pleasant as a cruise ship? Why not design our cities for people rather than for tourism or shopping? Why not provide our cities with a wide variety of social clubs, restaurants, parks, gardens, museums, recreational centers, bicycle paths, swimming areas, festivals, and other activities? Why not provide all of the basic necessities for free so that none of us have to be bothered with wallets, money, credit cards, or financial transactions of any type? Why not hide all of the utility lines? Why not put as much of our transportation system underground as possible? Why not remove all of the homeless people, criminals, beggars, and religious fanatics? Why not design our cities to be so pleasant, attractive, and fun that we prefer to spend our leisure time in the city rather than sitting inside our homes?


Visualize a "City of Ships"
 
 
Imagine placing some large cruise ships, as  I described above, on the land.

Imagine that life for the passengers remains the same even though the ships are now on the land.

Now create a city center by building a cluster of office buildings, factories, museums, recreational centers, social clubs, universities, and restaurants. 

Add parks, walkways, and bicycle paths.

Put greenhouses and farms along the outside to provide food.

Build an underground transportation system to connect the ships, farms, and business areas so that the people can visit the city and the other ships.

Finally, replace the ships with more decorative and spacious castles, and design them to withstand the strongest storms and earthquakes.

The end result is a "City of Castles".

Living in this type of city would be like living on a luxury cruise ship, except that the "passengers" in this type of city would have jobs, and they wouldn't be living in cramped conditions. All of the basic necessities would be provided for free. Nobody would own any of the land or buildings. Each castle would provide free facilities for its residents, such as restaurants, schools for young children, exercise areas, and simple medical and dental facilities. Each castle would also have special facilities for mothers with babies and young children, such as their own special restaurants, exercise centers, and parks. This would allow mothers and children to be together so that they don't bother us, and we don't bother them. The business section of the city would have the more advanced educational, medical, and dental facilities, and lots of social and recreational facilities for everybody.

None of the homes would need kitchens since everybody would have easy access to a wide variety of free meals within their own castle and in the city, but we could offer miniature kitchens to people who enjoy cooking, such as the unit in the photo to the right.

People who only want a refrigerator, freezer, and a stove to heat water or meals might prefer the mini kitchen in the photo below. These type of kitchens are best for this type of city because they can be moved in and out of the homes as people want them, just like furniture.


 
Above: the kitchen is closed.
Below: the counter top has been lifted up.

 
 

Different castles could be for different people

Since nobody owns their own home, everybody would be free to move from one home to another within their castle, or to a different castle, without any concern about buying or selling property. Actually, people would be encouraged to move so that they can be near their friends and jobs. Over time, this would cause certain castles to attract certain types of people. For example, one castle might attract a lot of scientists, and another might attract a lot of people who enjoy gardening, and another might attract a lot of people who enjoy hiking in the forests.

We could go one step further and set aside certain castles for people doing certain types of jobs in order to make it easier for us to provide those people with transportation to their jobs. For example, by putting the people who work at the farms and ranches in one particular castle, then we could provide them with a high-speed train that connects their particular castle to the farms and ranches. Another castle could be for the people who have to travel to fishing areas, mines, rocket launching pads, or factories that are far from the city. That castle could also have a high-speed train to take them to their particular jobs.

If you have trouble visualizing this concept, imagine the train in the drawing below carrying only farmers. The train starts at the particular castle where the farmers live, loads up with people, and then drops them off at the different farms and greenhouses on the outside of the city. The train would make this short, limited route over and over to transfer people back and forth from the farms to the castle. These would be high-speed commuter trains, so they would not need restaurants or bathrooms. They could be completely automated.

Another train would start at a different castle where some of the factory workers live, and it would transfer those people back and forth from their castle to the factories.

By making the transportation system available for free, nobody would have to waste any of their time with tickets or turnstiles. The people would simply go down to the basement of their castle where the train station is located, walk onto the train, and take a short ride. These trains would be able to rapidly move a lot of people to and from their jobs.

It would be impossible to provide everybody with their own special train, so no matter how we design the city there will always be people who have to take more than one train to get to work. However, this technique will provide a lot of people with very quick and easy transportation.

A city designed in this manner would make it practical for people who live inside the city to work outside of the city. This also reduces the amount of labor and resources that we have to put into building and maintaining transportation lines and devices. Instead of building a complex network of roads and trains that cover the land like a spider web, we need only a few high-speed trains.
 

The fewer roads and train tracks that we have to produce, the more of the environment we have for other purposes, such as forests, parks, farms, and bicycle paths.


 

Why do people enjoy cruise ships?

Most of the people who go on cruise ships are wealthy by world standards, and most of them own their own homes, and often a plot of land. Why would wealthy Americans, who have spent a lot of their life struggling to make enough money to purchase a large house, be excited to spend a lot of money for a small, cramped cabin on a small, cramped cruise ship? Although the penthouse cabins are large, most cabins are very small, and some do not have windows. Why would wealthy people consider a cruise ship to be a "luxury"?
This drawing shows the smallest cabin on a Disney cruise ship. The round object on the wall above the bed is a "virtual portal", which is an LCD monitor that provides a view of the outside. 

The cabin has 15.7 meters² (169 ft.²), and it is described as sleeping three or four people. How can four people live in that tiny cabin?


The standard, 20 foot long shipping container has 14.9 meters² (160 ft.²).

Some people, such as these Americans, add windows to shipping containers and use them as homes, but most Americans would describe these people as suffering from extreme poverty. Most Americans have a garage that is larger than a shipping container.

Most of the cabins on a cruise ship could be described as "shipping container homes", or as "luxury jail cells". Why would wealthy people enjoy spending a lot of money to live in one of these tiny cabins? The reason is that they are not "living" in those cabins. Those cabins are just areas for sleeping, grooming, and changing clothing. The people "live" on the ship, and they spend most of their time in activities with other people.

As I have pointed out in other files, happiness comes from having people and activities that you enjoy. You don't need a big house, diamonds, or plastic trophies. A cruise ship is designed with the philosophy that people will be happiest with activities, not sitting in their home. So, why not apply this concept to a city? It is actually much more practical to apply this concept to a city because a city has much more land, and therefore, the buildings don't have to be so cramped.

Most artists seem to be technically incompetent, so their fantasies for cities are a bit unrealistic, but the drawing below might help emphasize the concept that if we change our philosophy towards life, we could create cities that we enjoy. We could create a city in which the buildings are more resistant to earthquakes, bad weather, rats, cockroaches, and fires. The walls could be more soundproof so that we don't have to listen to running water or people walking on the floor above us.

The rooftops of our buildings can be beautiful, also. Have you noticed how many rooftops in Russia are beautiful? The drawing below was made in 1795 of an area near Moscow. Since the Russians were capable of building beautiful rooftops 200 years ago, Americans can certainly do so today. The Russians also make beautiful subway stations (look through the photos if you haven't seen them), and since they can do it, we should be able to do it, also!
Every aspect of our city could be beautiful. The walkways, bridges, bicycle paths, and stairways could be decorative works of art. We could make beautiful canals and artificial lakes. Train stations, factories, and schools could be beautiful. We could provide ourselves with cities that we love to spend our leisure time in.


Cruise ships would lose their appeal

If you were living in a City of Castles, you would have the type of life that people have on a cruise ship, except that a city has a lot of land available, so you would not have to live in cramped conditions. Your home would be larger than a shipping container, and it would have windows. All of the other buildings would be larger and more decorative, also. You would also have access to parks, botanical gardens, rivers, rowboats, and bicycle paths. A city would also have a lot more people than a cruise ship, and that would provide you with a much greater variety of social activities, people, restaurants, museums, and sports.

Why would anybody who is living in a City of Castles want to give up that life and take a cruise on a ship? The cruise ship would not offer anything that the people don't already have; in fact, it would offer more cramped conditions, and less variety in activities and food. The only reason people would want to go on a cruise ship is if they were interested in traveling. To a person living in the City of Castles, a cruise ship would not be seen as a "luxury". Rather, it would be considered as just a transportation device.

Cruise ships are considered to be a luxury in the world today because most people are living in an ugly, disorganized, filthy city that is full of crime, beggars, and noise. Furthermore, most wealthy people are living in a big house on a big piece of land, and that isolates them from other people. Most people don't like or know their neighbors. When these people take a cruise, they can escape the miserable conditions of their city. They can also avoid financial transactions, and the pestering of telemarketers, businesses, charities, and churches.

Supervising a City of Castles
 
The government would have a tremendous responsibility
The government would be responsible for providing everybody with their basic necessities, maintaining all of the buildings and land, and arranging for and supervising social activities, sports events, restaurants, and schools. The government officials would be doing virtually everything necessary to operate the city. The ordinary citizens would be in the role of submissive workers who follow orders. Compare that to America in which the government officials are supposed to be submissive representatives, and the American citizens are supposedly in control of everything.

Your first impression of this City of Castles may be that it would require a government with so much talent, honesty, and authority that it would be unrealistic. You might even consider it to be dangerous to allow a government to have so much control over society. However, once you realize that this type of city is similar to a group of cruise ships on land, or a group of Navy submarines on land, then you should realize that this type of city is indeed possible, but it would require a government that is similar to the officers of a cruise ship or the Navy. This type of government is realistic. There are people in the world today doing these type of jobs right now for the Navy and the cruise ships.

However, this type of government cannot be created through the type of election system that we have today. Voters in every nation have proven that they are incapable of selecting competent leaders. They have a 100% failure rate. The majority of people do not have the desire or ability to analyze the leadership abilities of people. If the voters were selecting the officers for a cruise ship or an aircraft carrier, then the ship would have management that is just as corrupt and incompetent as our governments.

In order to provide ourselves with a better government, we need to develop a better method of selecting government officials. In other files I mentioned some of the changes I would make to our election system, such as eliminating political parties so that people apply for government positions as individuals rather than as party members, but I will provide more details about this issue in another file in this series.


How can a government provide free food?

The government in the City of Castles would be in control of the production and the distribution of food, and it would be in control of all of the restaurants and food markets. The idea of allowing government officials to control our food supply may seem dangerous, but cruise ships are doing this every day, and so is the Navy. The astronauts on the space station are also provided with free food. Since people can do this in the ocean and in outer space, then we can do this on the land

Providing a city with food merely requires government officials to make decisions on such issues as: Which crops and animals should the farms and ranches produce? How many greenhouses should we build? Should we try hydroponic farming for some crops? How will the farms harvest and deliver the raw food? How many restaurants should the city have, and where should they be located so that people have easy access to them? Who becomes a chef at a restaurant?

In a free enterprise system, all of these decisions are made without government intervention. The people who are interested in food production simply get involved with the activity, and then they compete for profit.

On a cruise ship, the ship's management simply makes decisions on how many restaurants to offer, what type of restaurants, and what hours each restaurant will be open. They select some people to become chefs, and other people to become waiters. After making their initial decisions, they observe the results, and they make changes if they feel a need to. For example, if a chef is not very popular, then he will be replaced. If one restaurant is too popular to serve all of their customers, then the ship's management might expand the size of that restaurant, or extend its hours of operation, or they might tell some of the other restaurants to alter their menu in an attempt to attract more people.

Since the officers of a ship are capable of making decisions about preparing and providing food, the government officials of a city can do so, also. The city managers simply make decisions about what to do, and then they observe the results, and then they make modifications.

In the City of Castles, the people who want to operate a restaurant would simply apply for the job, and the government officials would select some of them. The officials would then observe the results. If a restaurant was not very popular, the officials would analyze the situation to determine the problem. If they came to the conclusion that the problem was the location of the restaurant, then they might decide to move the restaurant, or they might make changes to the city so that the area gets more traffic. If they came to the conclusion that the restaurant was not popular because people did not care for the food or the ambiance, then the government would help the chef find another job, and somebody else would be given the opportunity to be a chef.

It is not difficult for a government to provide us with food! Parents provide food for their families every day, and so does the management of an Army base. The management of jails, schools, and summer camps are also making these decisions every day. It is easy for a government to provide a city with food. However, the governments of today are not capable of doing this because our governments are full of incompetent, corrupt, psychotic, and dishonest freaks, pedophiles, and parasites.

It doesn't require extraordinary intelligence to figure out how to produce food, distribute it, or serve it to the people. It simply requires government officials who are truly interested in solving these type of problems. We need government officials who actually want to work, and for the benefit of society.

There are thousands of people with the honesty, responsibility, and other qualities necessary to be impressive government leaders, but people with good leadership qualities do not appeal to the voters. The voters are attracted to the candidates who praise them and make lots of simplistic remarks and promises.

Most voters behave like stupid animals that can be titillated with offers of food.

 

How could a government provide social activities for a city?

The management of a cruise ship provides its passengers with lots of recreational activities, social events, educational lectures, and tours. The management simply makes decisions about what type of activities to offer, and then they observe the results, and they make modifications to the activities if they feel a need to. Since the officers of a ship are capable of providing activities for their passengers, then the government of a city on the land can also provide activities for their people.

The government officials would provide us with activities in the same manner that they provide us with food. Specifically, the people who want to get involved with the creation or supervision of activities would apply for the job, and the government would select some of those people. These people would work with the government to create a variety of sports events, social activities, museums, hiking tours, scientific expeditions, educational lectures, and whatever else they assume would be useful. The government would then observe the results.

The activities that were not very popular would be analyzed, and if it was determined that people were not interested in that activity, then it would be discontinued. The government would regularly replace people who were creating activities that had low popularity, and this would give other people the opportunity to create activities for us. The government officials would be involved in a never-ending cycle of observation and experimentation.

Schools provide activities for students; parents provide activities for their children; cruise ships provide activities for passengers; and city governments can provide activities for us. It's not difficult. It simply requires that we create a government in which the officials are truly interested in society, and who actually enjoy working.


How could a government provide material items?

A government can provide us with products in the same manner that it provides food and activities. All we have to do is make a few changes to our philosophy towards life and our economic system. To help you visualize what the government would do, the photo below shows a scene from the television program, Shark Tank, in which entrepreneurs who need money present their proposals to a group of investors. First, consider three of the problems with the free enterprise system.


1) The focus is on profit, not society

The free enterprise system requires all of us to make money, but there is no concern for how we make money. Entrepreneurs and investors analyze projects from the point of view of their ability to make money. They ask such questions as, Can the item be patented? Does it have a copyright? What prevents other companies from plagiarizing the idea and making their own version? How many potential customers are there?
Since Shark Tank is a television show for the entire family, they have investors with higher moral standards than what we find in the real world. For example, in one of their shows a person was selling a bracelet that he claimed would improve our health by absorbing negative ions, but the investors refused to invest in it on the grounds that there was no evidence to support those claims. By comparison, the real world is full of people who routinely sell products that they know have no value, or are of such low quality that they will not function properly. Some people go even further and sell illegal items, including kidnapped children and illegally obtained kidneys or corneas.

The free enterprise system requires that each of us make money, but it is up to each of us to decide for ourselves if we want to be concerned about society, and if so, to what extent. The free enterprise system doesn't set standards for entrepreneurs or investors, and it doesn't provide any way for society to pass judgment on businesses and remove those that we consider to be destructive, dishonest, or abusive.

Some of the businessmen who sell worthless or destructive items truly believe that their idiotic products are useful, but a free enterprise system does not want the government to pass judgment on which products are idiotic. The consumers are supposed to make these decisions, but it should be obvious that consumers are doing a terrible job of analyzing products. For example, consumers are routinely purchasing magazines and newspapers that lie to them about the 9/11 attack and the Apollo Moon landing. They also purchase enormous amounts of religious products and services. The free enterprise system doesn't even provide us with provisions to pass judgment on which businesses are providing sensible products for children, and which businesses are exploiting the children.
 

2) Businessmen argue over money, not value
The free enterprise system puts us into a competition for money, not a competition to improve society. As a result, when entrepreneurs and investors argue with each other, they argue about money, not the value of their product. Some of the entrepreneurs who appear on Shark Tank are so concerned about making money that they argue with the investors over small amounts of potential profit that nobody may ever see. They are struggling to become rich, not struggling to help society, and some of them end up turning the investors away in the process.

Since we grew up in a free enterprise system, it seems natural to us for investors and entrepreneurs to argue over money, and you may wonder, how could they possibly argue over anything else? If we were to change our economic system so that the competition is to improve society, then the arguments would be over the value of the product, and how to make it more useful to society. 

To understand this concept, consider an entrepreneur today who appears on the television show Shark Tank. Let's imagine that he is producing a candy that is very popular with the children in his local area, and he wants to expand his business. The investors would look at the profit potential of his candy, and they might offer him a deal, and he might argue that he's not going to make enough money. This would create an argument over money.

Now imagine an economic system similar to that of a submarine or a cruise ship. The investors would be in the role of the ship's officers, and their concern would be to improve society, not make profit. The entrepreneur would boast that his candy is popular with the local children, but the investors would not care about the potential sales. Rather, they would wonder what value his candy has to society, and why society would benefit by making it available nationwide. They would argue over the value of the candy to society, not its profit potential. 


3) There is too much deception and manipulation

Our free enterprise system allows us to keep business related activities a secret, and our society follows the philosophy that we can keep all of our personal information a secret. Furthermore, we are doing virtually nothing to stop or prevent economic crimes. We follow the "buyer beware" philosophy. The end result is that nobody can trust anybody else. Everybody is suspicious of everybody.

We have created an unpleasant environment in which to conduct business. Investors are not allowed to demand answers to their questions, and there are no consequences to people who are caught lying. Investors are suspicious of people making proposals, and this causes the people who make proposals to waste some of their time and resources on their presentations in an attempt to create the illusion that they are honest, intelligent, and reliable. Some people go further and titillate the male investors with pretty women, or the female investors with children.

When a scientist presents information about his research project to other scientists, he tends to do so in a simple, serious, efficient manner. Compare the way scientists pass information to each other to the way businesses provide us with information, or the way entrepreneurs present their proposals to investors. At trade shows, for example, a lot of money is wasted on visually attractive booths, often with props to manipulate our emotions, and sometimes with free gifts. 

A lot of labor and resources are wasted on advertisements, trade show booths, and displays in retail stores. Furthermore, this behavior is destructive because it encourages people to deceive and manipulate one another.

On the television program Shark Tank, the presentations are usually very simple and sensible, but even this show provides an example of this particular problem.

For example, in the photo to the right, the men are dressed like firemen, which serves no useful purpose other than to create a interesting image. It makes the television show more entertaining, but props are a distraction. It would be better for people to present their information in a more serious manner, and to answer every question about their product.


Imagine a "Shark Tank" for society instead of profit

If you were a businessman who developed a product for the Navy submarines, you would not sell your item directly to the sailors. Rather, you would present your proposal to the management of the Navy. You would have to convince them that your product has value. Why not apply that concept to a city on the land?

Imagine a society in which people make proposals to a group of government officials rather than private investors. The officials do not look for ways to make profit. Instead, their goal is to find ways to improve society, and so they analyze the proposal from the point of view of how society will benefit. The government officials ask such questions as, Who is going to benefit from this product? Can this replace one or more existing products, or will this be an additional product? How easy will this be to recycle or maintain? Is this product better for the environment? Is it better for our health?

The people who make the proposals are not concerned with profit, either. Rather, their career is developing products for society, in which case they are simply doing their job, or they want to get into that type of a career and so they are trying to show that they have the talent, or they are just ordinary people who came up with an idea.

Nobody would profit from any of the proposals. If a proposal is accepted and becomes successful, then the person who created the idea will be credited with that achievement. The government official who approved of the project will also have that achievement on his resume, and the government officials who turned the project down will have that failure on their resume. Conversely, when a project turns out to be a failure, then the person who created it will have that failure on his resume, and the government official who approved it will have that failure on his resume.

After a few years, we would build up a database that shows us who among us is good at analyzing products and services, and who is good at creating them. This would help us make decisions about who to hire for the government agency that supervises new products and services, and who should be given the job of a product developer.

This concept is especially useful for the creation of social activities, sports events, museums, and even city parks. People with proposals would present them to government officials, who would analyze them from the point of view of how society might benefit. They would then experiment with some of these proposals, and watch the results. People would be able to make suggestions that would be ignored today, such as suggesting a change in the rules for baseball games that would cause the players to give exercise to more muscles, and to give them more useful exercise.

As I pointed out in my file about sports, most of the time the players on a baseball team are motionless. Our society puts a lot of labor and resources into baseball equipment and fields, and we encourage children to play this game, but what is the benefit to society? Baseball does not provide children with much exercise, and it doesn't provide them with opportunities meet new people, socialize, learn about themselves, or explore the world. Our sports are designed for savages who want to win games, collect trophies, and feel important. I would like to redesign our sports so that they have more value to us.

In our societies today, it is difficult for a person to create or influence social activities, museums, sports, city festivals, holidays, birthday celebrations, or weddings, but when a small group of government officials are in control of these activities, then we can present our proposals to that small group of people. Those officials would not be concerned about profit. Rather, they would be concerned about society, and they would frequently experiment with different proposals in an attempt to make our lives more pleasant.

Since nobody profits from the proposals, we eliminate the problem that we have today in the free enterprise system in which people are creating products simply as a way to make money. When there is no profit, people are more likely to create products and services that they truly believe in.

This type of philosophy would encourage people to look for ways to improve life for all of us. The government officials in charge of social activities would be forever looking through the proposals and experimenting with them in order to find better methods to help single men and women meet each other; help children learn about themselves; and help people to get more useful exercise. They would also sometimes experiment with new activities simply to provide us with variety so that we don't get bored. A city festival, for example, doesn't need the same events year after year. Sports events don't have to be the same every year, either. Why not try something different once in a while?

Instead of encouraging people to manipulate consumers into purchasing products, we would encourage people to look for ways to make our city parks more desirable, our museums more educational, and our weddings, holidays, festivals, and birthday parties less stressful, less expensive, and more pleasant.

We could also design the process so that the people who present ideas to the government are not allowed to waste labor and resources on the presentation. They would be told that they cannot use irrelevant props, or sexual titillation. They would be told to present their information efficiently, quickly, and seriously, and to answer every question that was asked of them. The people who do not follow the rules would have that problem recorded in the database.


We could prevent the exploitation of children

Our free enterprise system encourages us to make money, but there is no concern for how the money is raised, or what it is used for. As a result, some adults have discovered that children are effective as fundraising tools. For example, schools, charities, and other organizations send children through neighborhoods to sell candy, cookies, or magazines subscriptions. A Michigan high school has a yearly Bug-A-Thon event in which students eat bugs to raise money for a charity. (There are mealworms on the pizza in the photo.)

I don't think these activities are useful for the children, and I don't believe they're helping society, either. I think these fundraising campaigns are an irritation to most adults, and I think they are a bad influence on the children by encouraging them to beg for money, or to do idiotic stunts for money, rather than to look for ways to contribute to society. By putting the government in control of the economy, we can prohibit the use of children as fundraising tools.


A ship is a floating nation

It might help to think of a ship as being a nation on water, or to think of a nation as a ship on land. Both ships and nations are just organizations of people. It doesn't matter if an organization is on land, in water, or out in space. Ships, nations, sports teams, and orchestras are just groups of people that must work together like gears in a machine, and they all need competent, honest leadership.

An Italian cruise ship sank in January 2012. If some of the ship's officials turn out to be incompetent, then they should be replaced. However, if the sinking turns out to be the result of sabotage by the Jewish crime network, then the sabotage will likely be covered up. This brings up an important issue. Crime networks are flourishing in every nation, and the Jewish crime network is committing some of the most incredible crimes of all, but it is not because we cannot see these crimes or stop the criminals. Rather, it is because the majority of people are too irresponsible and selfish to get involved with the maintenance of their society. They want the benefits of modern society, but none of the responsibilities.

If you were on a submarine, and if some of the sailors were ignoring leaks in the wall, you would not describe those sailors as sweet, wonderful, or innocent. You would be horrified by their disgusting behavior, and you might even wonder if they were as human as the rest of us. You would also be horrified if the sailors were ignoring the evidence that the captain was incompetent, or that he had a young boy in his cabin as a sex slave.

Why not apply the same concepts to people on the land? We are surrounded by people who don't care about crime or corruption, and who are ignoring all of the evidence that our government, media, schools, businesses, think tanks, charities, and churches are full of criminals, pedophiles, and liars. The people who ignore these problems are just as disgusting as sailors who ignore leaks in a submarine.

In this modern era, people have to be much more responsible than our primitive ancestors. It is no longer tolerable for people to spend their lives concerned only with putting food into their mouth, having sex, playing with babies, and accumulating material items. We need people who want to be gears in a machine and help take care of society.


How could a government provide medical services?

The Americans who refer to themselves as "conservatives" are horrified at the thought of government health care, and we frequently hear stories about how terrible the health care is in England and Canada.
The military can provide themselves with medical services, and since they can do it, every other organization, including nations, can do it, also.
The only reason the American government cannot provide proper health care is because the American voters are incompetent, irresponsible jerks. It is not difficult for a government to provide us with medical services. In fact, the management of aircraft carriers, submarines, schools, and cruise ships are already providing medical services to their people. The military also provides medical services on the battlegrounds, despite the danger!

Some people complain that the medical services provided by the military are sometimes substandard, but people all around the world are frequently complaining about their medical treatment, even from private hospitals. Fixing human bodies is much more difficult than fixing an automobile engine.

A government can provide a nation with medical services in the same manner that a military provides itself with medical services. All we have to do is put people into the government who have a true desire to help society with its medical services. Those officials would make some decisions, observe the results, and make changes as they see a need to. It is not difficult. It doesn't take super-human intelligence to figure out how to provide medical services. It simply requires finding leaders who are truly concerned about helping their organization.

In the world today, free enterprise often provides better medical services than the government, but that's not because the government is incapable of providing the services. Rather, it is because our government leaders are incompetent and corrupt. Free enterprise is actually inefficient and irritating.

Imagine a battleground hospital in which free enterprise is handling all of the services. The doctors have to compete with one another for soldiers, and they have to charge the soldiers a fee. Imagine that the soldiers are subjected to advertising by pharmaceutical companies, such as, "Do you have trouble sleeping at night? Are the gunshots keeping you awake? Try our sleeping aids!" And how about advertisements from lawyers? "Do you feel that you are suffering from PTSD? If so, call the law offices of Scamberg and Scumstein for all your lawsuit needs!" And imagine that the hospital fees are just as high on the battlefield as they are everywhere else because of all of the parasitic executives at insurance companies, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and government agencies are making very high salaries from the medical operations, even though they don't actually contribute anything of value to the services.

It is entirely possible to get rid of our free enterprise system and create a society in which the government behaves just like the leaders of the military, or the officers of a cruise ship. Instead of putting the doctors, pharmaceutical companies, and hospitals into a competitive battle for profit, the government leaders would judge everybody in the medical profession according to their contributions to society. A medical scientist, for example, would be judged according to whether he is providing us with beneficial medical knowledge. If a scientist is contributing something of value to society, then he justifies being supported by society. We should look at a scientist's contribution to the human race rather than his ability to create profitable products.

The same concept applies to doctors. We should not care whether a doctor can make lots of money, or whether he is popular with his patients. A doctor should be judged the same way you would judge a mechanic. Specifically, the best mechanics are those that can maintain items in the best condition for the least amount of resources and downtime. Likewise, the best doctors are those that can maintain the health of their patients for the least amount of resources and trouble. Instead of making doctors compete for profit, the government should review their abilities to help people with health problems. If a doctor is successfully helping people, then he justifies being supported by society. The military is capable of following this philosophy, and so can an entire nation.

Furthermore, families also follow this philosophy without any problem. For example, if one child shows talent in providing first aid services to the other children, then he will be allowed to do so. Parents do not use free enterprise to determine which of their children should have access to the first aid supplies, or the automobile, or the kitchen appliances. Rather, parents judge their children according to their talents.

A nation is just a big family. It is entirely possible to create a nation in which we judge people by their contributions to society rather than their ability to make money. However, that type of nation requires leaders who behave like parents rather than like pedophiles, organized crime members, parasites, blackmailed drug addicts, and con artists.


Judge people by their effect on society

In a free enterprise system, a person and an organization is considered to be "successful" if it is profitable, and those that make the most money are considered to be the most successful. However, the ability to make money has no significance to human life. We should start judging people and organizations according to their long-term effect on society.

An example of this problem are the mechanics who repair cars, washing machines, and other devices. In the free enterprise system, a mechanic is considered to be a success if he makes a lot of money, and we assume that the mechanics who make the most money are the best mechanics. However, this is not necessarily true. There are numerous cases of mechanics who were caught charging their customers for work that they didn't do or didn't need, and some mechanics have been caught sabotaging items in order to cause their customers to come back in the future for another repair. It is idiotic to judge a mechanic according to his income, or his popularity.

If you were the captain of the ship, and if you had to hire some mechanics to do maintenance on the ship's engine, would you select mechanics according to which of them had the highest gross sales or the highest profit? Of course not! You would want to know the previous performance of each mechanic. You would look for the mechanics who have been maintaining items with the fewest number of spare parts, the least amount of downtime, and whose repairs have gone the longest without subsequent maintenance. Why not apply this concept to a society on land?

It is entirely possible to design a city that is essentially just a group of ships on land. The government of the city would be like the officers of the ships. The government officials would select some people to be mechanics according to their ability to maintain items. Those mechanics would be reviewed on a regular basis, and those that were doing the least efficient job would be replaced so that other people could have the opportunity to try the job. The leaders of society, rather than free enterprise, would make the decisions. This is not difficult. People are already doing this on ships and submarines.


Schools should compete in education

We can also apply this concept to schools. In a free enterprise system, schools compete for profit, and so their primary concern is pleasing the students and parents. None of the schools show any concern about the value of their education. Harvard and Princeton, for example, are considered to be successful schools, but what happens to their graduates? Are the students who graduate from Harvard and Princeton better prepared for jobs or society than the students of other schools? Nobody knows because school officials never investigate the effect of their education.

None of the schools are interested in what happens to their students. School officials are concerned only with attracting students and financial donations. Our school officials are behaving like political candidates and con artists; specifically, they try to make us feel good.

The American colleges are entertainment centers, not educational institutions. They compete for students by making their schools appear to be the most fun. A lot of their classes are interesting, but they are not providing the students with useful skills or preparing them for society. Our universities may as well be honest and create advertisements like the one below:

My attitude is that our childhood is very short and should not be wasted. Schools should prepare children for society as quickly as possible. Schools should be functional, not entertaining. The subjects that are interesting rather than useful should be designed for adults, and they can be in the form of television documentaries, adult education classes, or incorporated into leisure or social activities.

In our free enterprise system, a school exists if it can make a profit, but there is no concern for its value to society. If we switch to allowing the government to supervise the schools, then we can judge the schools and teachers according to their long-term effect on students.

School should prepare children for jobs by helping the students analyze themselves so that they narrow down the type of jobs that they might enjoy and be good at. Students should graduate from school with enough skills to get a job. Schools should also prepare children for society by explaining to them how society works, and how to use its resources. Students should be taught how to put on a seatbelt, for example. Airline stewardesses should not have to tell the passengers how to do that.

Unfortunately, the primary concern of American colleges is making money. As a result, some American students are graduating from college with no useful skills, and many students don't even fully understand the issue of credit card interest rates, even though they have built up enormous credit card debt.

By switching from schools that operate on profit to schools that are supervised by society, we switch from being helpless victims of free enterprise to becoming masters of our school system. We would be able to judge teachers and schools the same way the captain of a ship would judge his mechanics. We would be able to compare teachers and schools according to their ability to quickly and efficiently provide an education and prepare children for society.

For an extreme example, imagine that there are two schools in a city. At one school, the students graduate at the age of 16, and they have enough of an education and job training that they can immediately get jobs, move out of the house, and start preparing for marriage and families. At the other school, the 16-year-old students have such a worthless education that they can work at only the most simplistic of jobs, and they are so confused about life and so unprepared for society that they are afraid to leave their parents, and they are frightened at the thought of getting married and having children.

In a free enterprise system, the competitive battle for money causes schools to evolve into better profit-making ventures. American schools are wasting a lot of time and resources in attempts to entertain and titillate students. Once we take control of our schools, we can change the competition so that schools slowly improve their curriculum and teaching methods.


Lonely people need help, not exploitation

There are a lot of businesses that offer assistance to men and women who are looking for a spouse. These businesses are considered to be successful when they make a lot of profit, but we should judge their success on their ability to help us form stable relationships. The television shows, The Bachelor and The Bachelorette, are an example of this problem. I don't think those shows were designed to help people find a spouse. Rather, I think they were designed to put people into emotionally stressful situations in order to entertain the audience. Those television shows are considered to be "successful" because they make lots of money, but I would describe them as exploiting lonely, frustrated people.

I think that society should provide activities to help men and women find a spouse, but the activities should not be judged according to their popularity or their ability to make a profit. Rather, they should be judged according to their ability to help people form long-term, stable relationships. The activities that are the least effective in helping us should be abandoned, and the people who designed those failures should be replaced so that other people have an opportunity to test their ability to create these activities. We shouldn't allow a small group of people to dominate society, especially not people who are repeatedly failing to help us, or who are abusing us.

Why don't conservatives provide good leadership?
 
Get into the habit of being critical of leaders 
This section complains about the people we refer to as "conservatives", but I don't bother to criticize the "liberals" as much. The reason I concentrate on conservatives is not because they are worse than liberals. Rather, I think that most of the "people of importance", that is, the people who are going to have the greatest influence over the future of the world, are conservatives, not liberals.

A lot of conservatives are in positions of importance, but I don't think they are providing us with good leadership. Furthermore, the conservatives are likely to put up a lot of resistance to my theory that a government can do a better job of managing a society than free enterprise because they are promoting the exact opposite theory. Some of the conservatives want free enterprise to handle even more tasks, such as first-class mail, jails, electricity production, and the building of highways.

In this section I want to help you get into the habit of looking critically at people in influential positions, especially the people who call themselves "conservatives". The conservatives promote the frightening theory that the government is inherently inefficient, corrupt, incompetent, but demand evidence for all theories. Don't let anybody frighten or intimidate you. Take a critical look at their ideas, their personalities, and their history. Discuss the issues, and ask questions when you are confused about something. Demand sensible explanations.


Control your tendency to follow leaders like an animal

Both animals and humans have a strong emotional desire to follow our male leaders. We are naturally submissive to men in leadership positions. We trust them, and treat them better than other men. This is acceptable behavior for an animal and a primitive human, but it is not acceptable in this modern world. The men in leadership positions today need to be treated as "employees" who are doing a job, and we need to set high standards for them. We have to stop worshiping them. They are not kings. We have to change our attitude towards leadership. We have to set high standards for men in leadership positions and regularly review their job performance.

Animals do not have to pass judgment on their leader; they can safely give blind obedience to him. This policy works for animals because the males are constantly competing for leadership, and this ensures that their leaders are always mentally and physically healthy.

However, the competition for leadership in the human world is no longer fair or sensible. Crime networks, monarchies, and inheritances are allowing incompetent and corrupt people to get into positions of leadership, for example. Also, many people have created jobs that give them lifetime positions. For example, there is no competition for American Supreme Court justices or the Pope. The people who get into those positions can remain there until they die of old age. There is no concern about whether any of them even have a functional brain.

On Easter Sunday in 2005, the Pope had deteriorated so much from old-age that he could not go out into the public, so he tried to talk from his window, but he could not speak.  After struggling for a while, he gave up. Imagine if businesses, schools, or the military allowed such decrepit men to retain their position as teacher, pilot, or supervisor. It would be impossible for a male animal to remain in a leadership position if its brain wasn't functioning.

Animals have no desire to set standards for their leaders, and likewise, we humans do not want to set standards for our government officials, business leaders, school officials, or religious leaders. For centuries people have been following Kings and Queens who are insane, and some of the monarchs were children when they were promoted to the position of King or Queen. Most of the human population behaves like a stupid animal that mindlessly follows whoever happens to be in a leadership position regardless of whether he provides good leadership. Most people are so much like animals that they don't even care if their leaders are capable of speaking, or whether their leaders are involved with crime networks.

This problem seems to be worse for women because, in addition to not being able to think as well as men, they have a sexual attraction to the dominant males. Therefore, they are not only willing to follow incompetent and corrupt male leaders, they are willing to offer themselves sexually to those men. Neither female animals nor female humans show any concern about how the dominant males achieve their positions. They don't care whether he inherited it, got it from winning a lottery ticket, or got it from a crime.

Get into the habit of looking critically at yourself, and try to notice how much like an animal you are. Try to think more often rather than mindlessly follow your stupid emotions. Our emotions are becoming increasingly inappropriate for this modern world. Don't let them ruin your life or the potential future that we have for ourselves. We can bring tremendous improvements to the world, if we can control the animal qualities within our mind.


Compare personalities in the military and businesses

During the 1980s I had to visit some military bases, and I was impressed by how neat, clean, and orderly they were. Some of them were like little cities, with houses and landscaping.

I don't think you should dismiss the neatness and orderliness of the military base as meaningless. The men in the military are under no obligation to make their bases neat and orderly. They are under no obligation to plant trees, flowers, or grass. Most of us have no idea - or care! - what they do with their base. They have chosen to make their bases neat and orderly. They have chosen to plant trees, grass, and flowers. They also choose to wear clean clothing. Nobody makes them do any of this. None of us would know or care if their bases were sloppy.

I'm not going to deny that the military has problems. Actually, the military suffers from the same problems that every other organization has, such as alcoholism, drug abuse, crime, and people being promoted into positions that they are not well suited to. There are also some people in the military who were pushed into joining by their parents in the hope that the military would cure them of their irresponsibility or bad behavior. However, not even that problem is unique to the military. For example, some parents have forced their children to get a job at a local business in the hope that the job would help them to mature properly. Those particular kids are not working because they want to work. There are also people in the military who are simply looking for money and have no concern for their job, but that problem is not unique to the military, either. Lots of people take jobs only for the money.

Each of us ends up on a different path in life because we have subtle differences in our mind and body. Some of us are strongly attracted to certain types of sports, and some have strong attractions to music, and some are more interested in getting drunk. Why are some people attracted to the military, others attracted to sales, others attracted to corporate leadership, and others attracted to daycare centers?

I think there is a subtle difference in the personalities of the people who dominate the military and those who dominate business activity. From my casual observations, I would say that the difference between them is that the military is a team whereas the business executives want to be kings. The men in the military are gears in that machine, and they work together for the benefit of all. By comparison, the men who rise to the top in business today are savages who work for themselves.

Business leaders do not work with us, or help us improve ourselves, or inspire their competitors to do a better job. They regard everybody as their potential enemy, and they try to eliminate their competitors. They look for ways to cheat the government, not work with the government. They look for ways to circumvent laws, not improve our laws. They look for ways to manipulate customers, not improve society.

Furthermore, business executives do not put any pressure on society to make the cities neat, clean, or orderly. They don't care how ugly their city is, or whether it's full of crime, homeless beggars, polluted air, and litter. They instead concentrate on getting control of a piece of land, putting a giant mansion on that land, and collecting lots of material items. 

Some of the people in the military joined because they truly want to join a team and help society. Those men help the others in the military become better; they don't sabotage one another. They work together; they don't fight for dominance. By comparison, people with selfish, predatory, or parasitic personalities are more likely to be attracted to business activity, sales, or politics. They care only about themselves, not society.

Have you ever noticed how business executives spend their money? For example, Larry Ellison and David Geffen co-own a boat that is so large that it cannot dock at most marinas. Ellison and Geffen are just two of many wealthy people who spend an enormous amount of money on impressive gardens, houses, and boats, but all of their projects are for themselves, not society. They are not gears in a machine that work with us for the benefit of all. Rather, they are kings, and we are the foolish peasants who waste our talent, resources, and labor on their extravagant projects.

This photo shows one of Larry Ellison's many houses. This has an imitation of a 16th-century Japanese Emperor's home and garden.

We should put our labor, talent, and resources into  projects for society, not for kings or queens.

Some military leaders, such as Muammar Kaddafi, may want as much material wealth as the business executives, but military officers as a group seem to be much more concerned about society and much less interested in being a pampered king.


A society is a reflection of its leaders and citizens

If we were to put business executives, such as Larry Ellison and Bill Gates, in control of society, they would continue to behave exactly as they have been behaving all throughout their lives. Specifically, they would spend their time building giant mansions and yachts for themselves, and arranging for servants to pamper them. Giving Larry Ellison a government job will not change his personality or his behavior. He will continue to be the same person with the same desires. He will continue to regard himself as a King and us as his peasants.

Although the military has some selfish and crude people, I think that the military officers as a group are truly better behaved and more concerned with society than the typical business executive. If we were to put those particular officers in control of society, they would continue to behave just as they have been throughout their lives. Specifically, they would expect everybody to contribute to society, be neat and clean, and behave properly. They would expect a nicer home than that of the factory workers, but the difference between their homes would be small compared to what we see with business executives.

Whether a government is impressive or disgusting depends upon the people we put in leadership positions, and it also depends upon the citizens. There is nothing inherently dangerous or inefficient about a government. We have to be more critical about the people in the organization. An organization can only be as good as the people. Citizens who do not care about crime, or who are easily bribed, are going to allow crime to flourish. Citizens who have cravings to be Kings and Queens are going to look for ways to become wealthy rather than look for ways to help society. Citizens who want to spend their life playing with their dog or praying to Jesus are going to create a society that is full of dog products and religion.

Everybody has a different personality. It is ridiculous to follow the philosophy that we are all the same, and that everybody is easily replaceable, and that everybody is capable of being the president of the United States. It is true that there are lots of people who can replace an unskilled laborer, but we cannot easily replace people who are talented, honest, reliable, responsible, and concerned about society. Some people are better at certain jobs than other people, and they are not easily replaced.

Some people believe that putting women into positions of leadership will end wars, but America has lots of women in leadership positions in government, business, and schools, but what good has it done us? Britain was under the control of Margaret Thatcher for years, and England still has a queen, and Israel had Golda Meir, all of who were women of some type, perhaps Neanderthals, but females nonetheless. Where is the evidence that women are reducing war or helping society in any way? There are also lots of women in the feminist movement, but what good are those women doing us?

We must be much more concerned about who we allow in leadership positions, regardless of whether they are leaders in business, television, schools, sports, or a government agency. We have to look at their personalities and their abilities. We should not follow the philosophy that everybody is the same, and that we can pick a person at random and make him into a great leader with training, and that we can fix his bad behavior with punishments.


Why don't conservatives provide better leadership?

Conservatives boast about being educated, having jobs, starting businesses, and taking care of themselves. However, if they are truly better people than the liberals, then why don't they offer the most intelligent suggestions on dealing with the world's problems? Why aren't they having the most intelligent discussions?

The presidential candidates for America's 2012 election are a good example. They are frequently giving speeches and getting into discussions, but I don't think they say anything that is more intelligent than what we hear from the ordinary people. They spend most of their time insulting President Obama and pandering to Israel and religious fanatics. A child is capable of doing that.

Years ago I wrote that the truth doesn't need laws to protect it, and a variation of this concept applies to the conservatives who boast about being better than the liberals. Specifically, if they were truly better people, then they wouldn't have to tell us. We would be able to see it for ourselves. It would be obvious.

If we were to separate the liberals and conservatives into two groups, there would be some obvious visual differences between them. The conservatives, as a group, would be better dressed, cleaner, better groomed, more polite, and better behaved. The conservatives would also have fewer drug problems, less crime, fewer body piercings, and a lot more guns.

I think the reason the conservatives are visually better looking than the Liberals is because they are normal, healthy humans, whereas most of the liberals are somewhat defective. However, when you compare the opinions of the conservatives to the liberals, I don't see any difference in their intelligence. Both groups have some intelligent opinions, and both have lots of stupid, irrational, and hypocritical opinions.

There are some subjects in which the conservatives seem to be much less intelligent than the liberals. For example, the conservatives promote idiotic opinions about religion and evolution. They also have a "frightened animal perspective" of life. Specifically, they  promote the nonsense that we must live in fear of Muslims, criminals, teenage gangs, Nazis, atheists, communists, and illegal aliens.

Why are so many conservatives so religious? Why do so many conservatives believe that they can solve crime with punishments? Why do they believe that international disputes can be resolved with economic sanctions or war? Why do they become so emotionally upset over abortion and euthanasia?

Since the conservatives are in a lot of influential positions, I think it is important for you to take a critical look at their personalities. By understanding why they are failing as leaders, we will be able to do a better job of providing ourselves with more useful leaders.


Conservatives are "normal" humans

I would describe the conservatives as "normal" humans who are in good mental and physical health, and that they are similar genetically to our ancestors a few thousand years ago. If we could transport the conservatives back in time, they would fit in perfectly. By comparison, I think the liberal philosophy attracts the people who enjoy feeling sorry for themselves, or who are parasitic and want other people to take care of them, or who are misfits because they are obnoxious, irresponsible, or mentally ill.

When we compare conservatives to liberals, it's obvious that the conservatives are a higher quality group of people, but this leaves us with a paradox; specifically, why are the conservatives just as incapable as the liberals of providing leadership? Why don't the conservatives regularly impress us with their intelligence?

I think the key to understanding this paradox is to realize that the mental qualities that we see in the conservatives would have been well suited to life a few thousand years ago, but the world has changed dramatically since then. Many of those qualities are now detrimental. Humans must evolve into a more advanced creature. In this technically advanced era, the conservatives are savages. Their mental qualities made them well suited to a prehistoric life, but they are not capable of coping with modern issues.

I would describe the conservative philosophy as that of a savage. The conservative philosophy promotes the prehistoric attitude that every man is living in a world of enemies, and that every man is on his own to carry weapons and protect himself and his family from dangerous animals and people. The conservatives want each of us to own our home and some land; be the dictator of all that we own; and protect our home with weapons and security devices. They promote the "buyer beware" attitude. They don't want the government to remove criminals; rather, they want us to purchase weapons and live in fear of crime.

Julie Weiss, a nurse, carries a gun because she is afraid of criminals.
A picnic at a public park to support the policy of carrying guns in public.
Conservatives complain when the government sets rules that we must follow in regards to the disposal of chemicals, the drilling of oil, the harvesting of trees, the fishing of salmon, and the mining of coal. The conservatives want individuals and businesses to have the freedom to do as they please with no regard to the effect on society or the environment. They also want their children to be able to inherit land, property, material items, servants, and businesses. They have the emotional cravings of a primitive savage, and they are trying to re-create that prehistoric life.


Conservatives follow their emotions, not their intellect

The conservatives demand freedom, and they complain about government involvement in our personal lives and in business activity, but they reverse this policy for certain issues, such as abortion, euthanasia, and the killing of retarded children. The conservatives want the government to get involved in our personal lives in order to prevent us from having abortions, or killing even the most hopelessly retarded baby. 

The conservatives boast that they oppose the killing of unwanted children because they are better people than those who support such killings, but their policies are not based on reasoning or love. The conservatives are simply following their crude emotions. They are reacting to the issues, not thinking about the issues. They are behaving like a stupid animal that follows its craving to take care of babies, not an intelligent human who can discuss these issues and sense the stupidity and cruelty of letting these deformed people suffer a lifetime of loneliness and pain.

Juliana Wetmore, for example, was born with serious deformities, and she has suffered through a lot of painful surgeries, but who benefits from this? If the doctors are learning something, then we could say she is useful as a medical experiment, but I doubt if the doctors are learning anything. I think she is just another example of how the majority of people are simply unable to cope with life today and are behaving like stupid animals who struggle to care for babies no matter how senseless the situation is.

Juliana Wetmore
Juliana at birth
One of many treatments
After many treatments
Incidentally, the baby without a brain, which I mentioned in another file, is now two years old. How much longer are we going to waste resources on this baby? If there were only a few hopelessly defective babies in the world, they would be an insignificant drain on our resources, but defective people are everywhere on the planet.

We don't see the unwanted and unloved creatures because they are hidden in hospitals or homes, or voluntarily hiding, but there may be millions of them suffering miserable, lonely lives. Ignoring them does not make the problem go away, and it doesn't make their lives any less miserable.

We treat defective people like trash, but the conservatives won't allow them to be killed. This is not because conservatives are loving and caring; rather, it is because they do not have the ability to control their emotional craving for babies, and they do not have much of an interest in learning, thinking, researching, or discussing issues. They don't want to deal with such complex problems as genetic defects and euthanasia. They want to spend their life like a savage; specifically, feeding themselves, reproducing, fighting for status, worshiping some god, and collecting material items. They cannot cope with this modern world.

"Where do we draw the line?"
Some conservatives justify their opposition to abortion and euthanasia with the expression, "Where do we draw the line?" They imply that if we allow the killing of people for "sensible" cases, then after we become accustomed to killing people, we will modify the laws and do it for less sensible cases, and after we become accustomed to those killings, we will modify the laws again, and eventually we will be killing healthy people!

This is not intelligent reasoning. This is an attempt to frighten us into thinking that the human mind is so poorly designed that we cannot trust ourselves with the freedom to kill retarded people. However, this idiotic attitude could be applied to every activity, including the eating of food. For example, we could point out that providing people with the freedom to make their own meals is resulting in some people eating unhealthy foods, or too much food, or too little food. Therefore, the government should get involved in our personal lives to control our food consumption.

When humans are provided with the freedom to choose their meals, some people will indeed eat too much, or too little, but that is not my problem or your problem. That is the problem of the people who cannot control their food consumption. Likewise, if we allow euthanasia for old people, some people will kill their parents sooner than they "need to", or months after they should have, but that is not your problem. We cannot achieve perfection in life. We simply have to make decisions, draw a line somewhere, and then watch the results. And if we don't like the results, then we redraw the line somewhere else. The people who complain that "we cannot draw the line" should be regarded as hysterical, frightened savages who are incapable of coping with modern society.

Conservatives are not "tough on crime"
The conservatives boast that they are honest people who are "tough on crime", but they are only tough on crimes that other people commit, especially people of other nations or races. They are extremely lenient on the crimes that conservatives commit, such as financial fraud, pedophilia, price-fixing, and cheating on taxes.

Barney Frank was elected to Congress by liberals, so we cannot blame conservatives for that. However, an orphan boy testified in court that Frank was just one of many men in leadership positions who were raping orphan boys, but as far as I know, not one conservative proposed that the conservatives take their guns to Congress and arrest Barney Frank and all of the other pedophiles. Why are the conservative so tough on black people who smoke marijuana or use cocaine, but they don't do anything about the pedophiles in the government or the Catholic Church?

Incidentally, the issue of Barney Frank and pedophilia should be used as more evidence of how worthless it is to let citizens own guns. There are millions of conservatives in America with guns, but when are they going to use them? Crime is rampant in this nation, and corruption is everywhere in government, schools, businesses, and churches. Larry Silverstein is still walking around freely in New York City. When are the conservatives going to get together and use their guns to eliminate crime? The answer is, never.

The conservatives are not interested in standing up to criminals, eliminating government corruption, or analyzing world events. They want guns for defensive purposes only. They are like a frightened animal that is hiding in the bushes. They do not even have the courage to face Barney Frank. Kay Griggs claimed that Henry Kissinger raped some American soldiers, but what do the conservatives do about that accusation? Nothing!

Religion is emotional, not intellectual
Animals have a strong craving to follow a older, male leader, and likewise, conservatives have a strong craving to follow an old, male god. Although conservatives tolerate atheism and people of other religions, they are constantly pushing their particular religion on the rest of society. They want the government to stay out of our lives, but they also want the government to promote religion. For example, they want the government to put religious references on money, such as "In God We Trust", and they push for religion and prayer in schools. I suppose the conservatives are responsible for the idiotic ritual in America's courts in which a person has to place his hand on a Bible and repeat an oath of honesty. They also push religion at weddings.

The conservatives boast that they are more religious than liberals because they are better people, but I think their stronger attraction to religion is mainly because they have a mind that is more like a primitive savage than a modern human.

Animals are arrogant and selfish
Conservatives are also as arrogant as a savage. For example, when conservatives destroy part of the environment from their abusive practices, such as harvesting so many abalone that their fishing businesses go bankrupt, or cutting so many trees in the forest that they have no more trees to harvest, then they complain that the government is responsible for not controlling the situation. Conservatives will not accept responsibility for their problems.

Conservatives never seem to admit mistakes. Every problem they suffer from is due to somebody else or some mysterious force. For example, they consistently elect incompetent, dishonest, and stupid government officials, but when those government officials show signs of incompetence or corruption, they blame the liberals or the "special interests" for blocking their brilliant proposals. They will not tolerate the possibility that they are incompetent voters, and that their leaders are idiots and criminals.

Look at America's 2012 Republican presidential candidates. If one of them is elected president, and if he is ineffective as president, the conservatives will blame the liberals for preventing him from doing his job properly. They will not tolerate the possibility that they elected an incompetent man.

When a person criticizes the nation, the conservatives react like primitive savages who have been attacked by a neighboring tribe; specifically, they become defensive, angry, and hateful. They accuse the person of being unpatriotic, a terrorist sympathizer, or a liberal, and they often tell them to leave the country if they don't like it. They are not interested in doing critical analyses of themselves or society, or trying to improve themselves. They assume that they are perfect. They do not appreciate constructive criticism.

Animals "fight", they don't "compete"
Animals have no concern for society, and they have no desire to inspire their competitors to become better. Animals want to chase their competitors away; they want to dominate their competition.

Humans have that same craving to chase away and dominate competitors, but there are subtle variations between us. Some of us can control ourselves enough to form teams and compete in a fair manner, and some of us can go even further and inspire our competition, and even give them advice to make them better. At the other extreme are the people, such as Joseph Stalin, who don't seem to have any ability to work with other people, and who will not tolerate competition. These men surround themselves with submissive soldiers, and they will use any diabolical tactic to eliminate competitors.

A lot of the men who rise to the top in the free enterprise system seem to be more like animals than modern humans. These successful men don't compete in a fair manner, and they don't want to help their competitors to do a better job. They want to eliminate or dominate their competition. They don't care about society. They want to become the dominant male.

When their business suffers from financial problems, they often react by cheating or asking the government for some type of handout. If they lose sales to a foreign company, they often react by proposing tariffs or quotas, or begging the citizens to be patriotic and purchase products from their own nation.

If the conservative businessmen were better people than the liberal businessmen, then we would see the conservative businessmen behaving in the most advanced manner, but all of the businessmen, whether conservative or liberal, seem to behave more like animals than humans.

Conservatives are out of place today
In 50,000 BC, the conservatives would have been wonderful members of the human race, but their qualities are becoming increasingly inappropriate. Humans have to evolve into a creature that is less like an animal. We must become more concerned about society and more cooperative. We have to become gears in a machine, not savages who fight for dominance. We need to eliminate crime, not buy guns and live in fear of criminals. Furthermore, we have to evolve into a creature that can do what nature used to do for us; specifically, control reproduction.

You might find it entertaining to imagine life on a Navy ship if the officers behaved like wealthy conservative businessmen. Imagine a ship in which the officers are are provided with an enormous, luxurious cabin, and are pampered incessantly by the sailors, and they justify this policy by claiming that their incredible wealth will "trickle down" to the ordinary sailor. Imagine that when there is a crime on the ship, the captain tells the sailors to carry guns, install security devices, and live in fear of criminals. Imagine that when a sailor is cheated by the ship's doctor or by the chef, he is laughed at and told "buyer beware". Imagine that the officers insist that their children be allowed to inherit their job and luxurious cabin, and the sailors who oppose this policy are accused of supporting "death taxes" and of denying a parent the right to help their children. To be truly accurate, we also have to imagine the ship's officers forming friendships and marriages according to the political benefit they gain; secretly conspiring with one another to help maintain control of the ship; and sabotaging, murdering, and blackmailing their competitors. Imagine the ship's officers believe that free enterprise does everything better, and so they don't provide anybody on the ship with free food, water, or other services. Instead, they tell the passengers and crew to either purchase their meals from one of the privately owned restaurants on the ship, or they purchase kitchen and dining room equipment and make their own meals by purchasing food from markets on the ship. Imagine that the ship's officers allow businesses to build stairways, elevators, and hallways on the ship, and charge people a fee to use them. Imagine that each passenger has to choose a business to provide his cabin with phone service, electricity, television signals, and water, and imagine that they get billed for their utilities. And imagine if door-to-door salesmen and religious fanatics were allowed to travel through the ship on a regular basis, and if telemarketing was also allowed.


The Liberals promote pity, forgiveness, and handouts

The people who call themselves "conservatives" seem to be very similar to one another; it's a somewhat homogenous group. I think the reason is because they are "normal", healthy humans. By comparison, the people who call themselves liberals have much more diversity. I think this is partly because this category attracts a lot of the defective people.

The people who have failed to achieve their goals in life, the misfits, the social outcasts, the people with mental disorders, and the people who are unhappy with life are more likely to associate themselves with liberals rather than with conservatives. Young people also seem more attracted to the liberal philosophy, and I suspect it is because a child's attitude is similar to the liberal philosophy that we should share material wealth, even with people who don't contribute anything, and that we should help one another, feel sorry for one another, and give everybody second chances and third chances, and so on.

As with conservatives, the liberals do not want to take responsibility for their failures, but the liberals blame their problems on rich people, corporations, money, aristocrats, poverty, and society. Some of them blame their parents for not raising them properly. There are some liberals who admit that they make mistakes, but they seem to do so in order to get attention, pity, or handouts, not to learn from the mistakes or help other people. Some of them admit their mistakes over and over on talk radio shows, or to whoever will listen. They love to feel sorry for themselves, beg for pity, and look for handouts. They behave more like children than adults.

Michael Moore speaking at the Occupy Denver protest. The liberals complain about rich bankers, but they don't complain about the rich liberals in the media or entertainment business.
The "Occupy Wall Street" protests are an example of  some of the worst liberals. They are young, sloppy, ugly, and poorly groomed. Many have no desire to get a job, and some of them are unemployable because of their bizarre personalities. It is March 2012, and some of them have been demonstrating since September  2011, but they still don't have any intelligent explanation for what they are demonstrating about, and they still have no intelligent proposals for us. There is no reason to listen to them because they have nothing intelligent to say. All they do is complain about rich people, demand handouts, and beg for pity, just like a child having a tantrum.

Earlier I suggested imagining a ship in which the officers behave like some of our more extreme conservative businessmen. Compare that to a ship in which the officers are like Michael Moore and other extreme liberals. The officers on this liberal ship are just as wealthy as the officers on the conservative ship, but the liberal officers are promoting the concept that everybody should share the wealth, even though they won't share any of their wealth. They are just as selfish as the conservative officers, and they also insist that their children be allowed to inherit their wealth and jobs. There is almost no difference in the behavior of the liberal and conservative officers, but the sailors on the liberal ship are noticeably different from the sailors on the conservative ship. The sailors on the liberal ship are sloppy, ugly, and poorly groomed. Many of them do not have jobs because they either don't want to work, or their personalities are so bizarre that nobody wants to work with them. The liberal ship also has lots of crime, illegal aliens, homeless people, and drug problems. There are also lots of psychologists and jails that try to cure people of their criminal and bizarre behavior.

Would you rather live on the conservative ship, or the liberal ship? The point I want to make is that both ships would be awful. Neither conservatives nor liberals are going to lead the human race into a better future.


Conservatives are frightened of dark rooms

Animals consider anything unfamiliar as potentially dangerous. Most people are not much better than the animals. Most adults follow a narrow path in life, and they consider people who are on a different path to be potentially dangerous, and they try to force them to join the crowd. Centuries ago some people would try to force left-handed people to become right-handed. Today everybody can accept left-handed people, but Americans are still having trouble accepting people who eat horse meat, dog meat, and cat meat, and most people cannot tolerate homosexuals. They react to homosexuals with fear or anger, and they think that they can convert them to heterosexuals with Bible lessons, beatings, psychological treatment, or sarcastic remarks.

The intolerance of homosexuals is creating problems for both the homosexuals and for society. For example, if people would accept homosexuals the same way we accept left-handed people, then there would be no way for crime networks to blackmail homosexuals. This would reduce the influence crime networks have over society. For another example, if we accepted homosexuals, there wouldn't be so many fraudulent marriages in which homosexuals try to pretend that they are heterosexual.

The conservatives seem to have more trouble tolerating homosexuals than liberals. The conservatives assume that their intolerance of homosexuals is evidence that they are better than liberals, but their behavior towards homosexuals is like that of an animal that is frightened by a strange noise. The conservatives also seem to have more trouble tolerating different races of people, and different religions. They are like animals; they are like primitive savages who regard everybody who is different as a potential enemy.

The intolerance of homosexuals is causing many of them to pretend that they are heterosexual, but this is hurting their image, not helping them. One reason is that it makes them appear to be deceptive and dishonest. Another reason is that we don't notice the better behaved homosexuals. Instead, we notice those who have been exposed as homosexuals as a result of their lewd comments, rapes, or pedophilia, or we notice those who voluntarily admit their homosexuality, but many of them do so to flaunt their homosexuality rather than admit to it.

If we could accept homosexuals, hermaphrodites, and other types of sexual problems in the same manner that we accept left-handed people, Siamese twins, crooked teeth, bad eyesight, and freckles, then nobody would have to hide their sexual problems. If we went even further and put everybody's life history into a public database, we would notice that everybody has a few genetic disorders and medical problems. If everybody could look on the Internet and see everybody else's medical problems, I think that fewer people would have the audacity to insult somebody for being homosexual.

In prehistoric times it was very important for people to be afraid of unfamiliar people and situations, but that fear of the unknown is inappropriate today. This modern world needs leaders who can deal with unfamiliar situations without fear, and who can calmly discuss the issue, do some research, and provide us with intelligent analyses that are backed up with sensible reasoning.


Homosexuals should stop hiding

The art and entertainment businesses seem to be full of homosexual men, and many of them are popular and famous. I think the reason some of them are so popular is because they are less aggressive and less arrogant than a normal man. Some of them have pleasant personalities. However, by hiding their homosexuality, they are allowing the more disgusting homosexuals to give homosexuals a bad image.

If only one or two of the better behaved homosexuals were to publicly admit that they were homosexual, they would be tormented by the religious fanatics and conservatives, but if all of them would admit their homosexuality, I think they would overwhelm the homophobes and improve the image of homosexuals. However, perhaps they have trouble standing up to the homophobes because they don't have the typical heterosexual man's aggressive personality. Perhaps their more gentle, submissive personalities are allowing the homophobes and the more psychotic, aggressive homosexuals to dominate them.

This concept also applies to black people, women, and every other group of people. For example, the women who appear on television and in movies are often whining about sexism, and many of them are as sexually promiscuous as a teenage boy. Some of their remarks are so lewd, crude, and sexual that a man would be slapped if he were to make the same remark to a woman. Many of the women that appear on television dress like prostitutes, use extreme amounts of makeup, have absurd amounts of cosmetic surgery, and wear shoes that are so impractical that they sometimes need assistance in walking. How many of the women that you personally know are like the women that you see on television and in movies? Does your mother, sister, or daughter behave like those women? Television and movies are giving children a distorted view of women.

The disgusting aspects of the entertainment business is another example of how neither conservative nor liberals are providing us with proper leadership. The liberals dominate the entertainment business, but the conservatives are doing nothing about it. Some conservatives are complaining about the entertainment business, but their solution is to replace it with idiotic religious propaganda. Neither group is providing leadership.


Walk away from the "talking monkeys"

Some private companies seem to be outperforming NASA in the development of rockets, but if the American voters were allowed to select the management of those private companies, then they would become just as incompetent, corrupt, and disgusting as NASA. Our government is a disaster because most people cannot handle the responsibility of voting. Don't be fooled into thinking that governments are inherently disgusting.
The majority of people are like a ball and chain around our legs. It doesn't matter whether they refer to themselves as conservatives, liberals, or independents. The majority of people are primitive savages who can't cope with this modern world.

I think the only way we can create a better society is to build some new cities and restrict immigration to the people who truly fit into this more advanced society. We have to turn our backs on our relatives, walk away from them, and join with people who have better qualities. We must leave the majority of people where they are right now.

We could be doing this right now! All we have to do is find some land for a new city, and then design and build the new city, and then start experimenting with it. It ain't that difficult!

The freedom to demonstrate is outdated
 
We do not communicate with our voices today
It made sense for the American Constitution to guarantee the citizens the right to demonstrate in the streets. When America was created, the human voice was the primary method of communication. If citizens were upset with their government, they had to walk or ride a horse to the government offices, and talk to the government official. Or, they had to walk down the street and yell their opinions to the people in the city or to the government officials.
It makes sense for primitive people to stand in front of crowds and yell to them. In fact, the news was often spread to the population when a town crier would stand in front of a crowd and yell about the recent news events. However, in this modern world, walking down the street and yelling opinions is disruptive because the streets today are crowded with motor vehicles and people. It is now more practical for people to communicate by telephone, Internet, and e-mail.

Furthermore, it is impossible to analyze complex opinions when they are verbal. Anybody who has complex opinions needs to record them in some manner, such as in writing or on video, so that we can analyze and discuss them.


Most demonstrations today are fraudulent

I personally visited some anti-war demonstrations many years ago, and it was obvious to me that the leaders were suppressing discussions about the Israeli involvement in 9/11. The leaders of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) demonstrations (that are still occurring as of March 2012) claim that there are no leaders of their demonstrations, but there are Jews organizing the demonstrations worldwide, funding them, and quietly suppressing discussions about the Jewish involvement in 9/11 and other crimes. The Jews are pretending that the OWS demonstrations don't have any leaders or any specific goals because they don't want us to realize that the demonstrations are fraudulent.

Years ago I came to the conclusion that most of the demonstrations, regardless of what they are for, are organized by the international network of criminal Jews, and those Jews secretly suppress discussions about issues they don't want to become public, and they secretly promote their particular propaganda. The people who join the demonstrations are fools who don't realize that they are being used by those criminal Jews.

Furthermore, most of the people who join the demonstrations don't seem to be interested in thinking or researching, and so they don't bother to think about the issue they are demonstrating about. After talking to some of them, my opinion is that most of them join the demonstrations because of low self-esteem, loneliness, or boredom, and they like to imagine themselves as heroes who are ending war, or fighting corruption, or defending freedom.

The people who join the anti-war demonstrations claim to be opposing war, but that is not telling us anything of value. Everybody opposes war, except for a small minority of psychotic people. We are not going to stop war simply by walking down the streets and demanding an end to war. In order to stop war, or stop anything else, we have to figure out what is causing it. And then we have to devise possible methods to prevent it from happening in the future, and then we have to experiment with some of those possible solutions. However, the anti-war demonstrators never have discussions about why wars are occurring or who is responsible for instigating them, and they never provide us with intelligent proposals on what we might do to reduce war.

The people who I personally spoke with at the demonstrations to oppose the Iraq war were not even interested in considering my theory that the war was instigated by a Jewish false flag operation that they refer to as the 9/11 attack. I told them that if they expose the 9/11 attack as an Israeli operation, then they would remove the justification for the war, but most of them couldn't comprehend that simple concept. Or perhaps they just didn't have the emotional ability to face the possibility that the 9/11 attack was a Jewish operation.

The people who join anti-war demonstrations never bother to do any research into the issue of why wars are occurring. They only have vague complaints about a "military-industrial establishment" and "corporations". The protesters don't have any intelligent proposals on how to stop or prevent war, and they never encourage us to join them in an intelligent discussion about the issue of war. They want to complain about war, not try to understand or stop it.

Likewise, the people who join the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations don't have any intelligent proposals or analyses for us to think about, and they cannot have an intelligent discussion about what they are trying to accomplish. All they can do is complain about wealthy bankers and corporations. They're not interested in discussing alternative economic systems that have more sensible monetary or banking systems.

We were given the right to demonstrate so that we could express our opinions and keep the government under control, but most of the demonstrations today seem to be organized by criminal Jews, and most of the participants seem to be mentally incompetent fools who have no intelligent opinions or proposals to present to us. Their demonstrations are the adult version of a childish temper tantrum.

The Jews are using the demonstrations to manipulate people and instigate fights, and the participants are using the demonstrations to have temper tantrums or imagine themselves as heroes. This is not the reason Americans were given the right to demonstrate. We need to put an end to these fraudulent and destructive demonstrations, not encourage more of them.


How would you improve a cruise ship?

If you were a passenger on a cruise ship, and if you wanted to bring some improvements to the social activities or the food, or if you considered one of the ship's officers to be incompetent or corrupt, what method would you use? Would you want the freedom to demonstrate down the hallways of the ship? Would you make signs and then chant slogans for hours? Would you throw rocks at the security personnel?

Most people realize that the best way to improve a cruise ship is to first discuss the issue with their friends, develop an intelligent suggestion, and then contact some of the ship's management and talk to them about it.

This concept also applies to a society. If you are unhappy with some of the policies of society, the best method of dealing with it is to do some research into the issue, discuss the issue with your friends or associates, develop some intelligent opinions, and then explain those opinions to other people.

In my social technology files, I point out that developing social technology is the same as developing physical technology. When an engineer has an idea on how to improve a jet engine, he doesn't have a demonstration in the hallways of his office building, and he doesn't throw rocks at the security personnel, and he doesn't chant slogans for hours. Instead, he thinks about the issue, does some research, talks to other people, and possibly conducts a few experiments. Then he discusses his proposal with more people, and if they also consider it worth investigating, then they will promote it to still other people.

The human race has achieved a lot of technical and social progress during the past few thousand years, but none of it has come about from throwing rocks at the police or chanting slogans. It came about as people thought about issues, did research, discussed issues, and then experimented with some of the new ideas.


If you have to scream, you have nothing of value

Neither the people who demonstrate against abortions nor the people who demonstrate for abortions have intelligent analyses of the issue. The anti-abortion protesters give us nonsensical religious propaganda, and the pro-abortion protesters give us the theory that a woman has a "right" to have an abortion. The only way those two groups can attract our attention is to demonstrate in the streets in front of us, throw rocks, chant slogans, and yell.

If somebody truly has brilliant opinions, then eventually other intelligent people will realize it. If the only way a super genius can get us to listen to his brilliant ideas is to stand in the street and yell at us, then he doesn't truly have any brilliant opinions. Protesting should be considered as evidence that the protesters have nothing of value to say.

This concept applies to the meetings, debates, and discussions of all types. Specifically, if a brilliant person has to yell, interrupt, roll his eyes, or insult the other people in order to convince them that his ideas are the best, then he is not nearly as brilliant as he thinks he is.

We need the freedom to discuss issues, but we do not need the freedom to throw rocks at the police, block traffic, or yell at people. There is a difference between freedom of speech and freedom to be an obnoxious brat.


We are fools to tolerate tantrums

America not only allows protests, we encourage protests by providing the protesters with police protection. Many protesters believe that the police are their enemy, but the police provide protection to the protests. Americans are allowed to contact the police and tell them that they want to stage a protest, and the police will often protect the protesters, and sometimes block off streets for the protests. The police become violent only when the protesters get violent.

Sometimes there are two groups of conflicting protests, and the police keep them separated to prevent fights from occurring. In the photo below, for example, the police are separating two groups of protesters, each on different sides of the abortion issue.

Imagine a mother and father giving their children the right to protest. Imagine a child telling his parents that he wants to have a tantrum on Saturday morning, and the father and mother schedule their time so that they can follow the child along the hallways and into the rooms to ensure that the tantrum is peaceful. And imagine that sometimes two of the children have opposing tantrums, and the father and mother react by ensuring that both tantrums occur peacefully, and that no fights occur between the children. What would you think of those parents?
Imagine a father tolerating his bratty children the way these policemen tolerate these protesters. We are not protecting our freedom of speech when we tolerate these protests. Rather, we are encouraging more of these obnoxious tantrums.
We need to update our society and forbid demonstrations. The citizens should be told that if they have something intelligent to say, they should develop their opinions and post the article or video on the Internet. And we should tell the citizens that if everybody ignores their brilliant opinions, that is their problem, not our problem. 

We need the freedom to discuss issues and investigate people and events, but we do not need the freedom to demonstrate. We should not feel sorry for super geniuses who have brilliant ideas, but who cannot get anybody to listen to them. If the only way a super genius can get us to listen to him is to stage a protest, then he should be regarded as a primitive savage who doesn't belong in this world. We do not have to tolerate or pity the unappreciated super geniuses!


Corrupt police cannot make demands

It's important to understand that no police department in the world today can get away with demanding the citizens behave properly because a lot of policemen are suspected of pedophilia, corruption, and other crimes. That type of hypocrisy incites anger towards the police.
In order for a government to prohibit demonstrations and demand that the citizens behave properly, those authorities must convince us that they are honest people who are truly doing what they believe is best for the nation. When we trust the authorities, we will realize that their policies are intended to help the nation, so if we dislike one of their policies, we will either quietly accept it, or we will discuss the policy rather than accuse the authorities of imposing their selfish demands on us.

By comparison, when we distrust the authorities, we will be suspicious of their policies and wonder which of them are intended to help the nation, and which of them are intended to help themselves or their criminal friends. The American government has such a bad reputation that almost every law they create is suspected of being created to help some small group of people who support that particular government official. 

When the citizens trust and respect their government and police, they will discuss the policies rather than accuse the authorities of selfish behavior. The focus is shifted away from the authorities and onto the policies.


We should remove protesters, not hurt them

The police react to violent protesters by hitting them with sticks, spraying them with water, or shooting them with rubber bullets. All throughout history every nation has been following the philosophy that we can fix bad behavior with punishments, but this has had a 100% failure rate. A better solution would be to remove the destructive people from society.

When you find fleas crawling on you, do you punish them? Do you torture them? Of course not. You get rid of them and then resume your life. We should do the same with humans who are troublesome.


Citizens must have the right to investigate and discuss issues

The only way to improve society is to analyze it and discuss possible improvements. Citizens no longer need the right to demonstrate in public areas. However, we need the right to investigate any person, including government officials and policemen, and we need the right to freely discuss any topic. This requires that citizens have access to information about people, including the government officials.

The government officials should not be allowed to operate in secrecy. The communist leaders provide some amusing examples of this problem. For example, there have been rumors for years that North Korea's leader Kim Jong-il had died, and that somebody who looked similar to him was put in his place, but nobody could verify any of those rumors because their leaders are so secretive that not even the people in North Korea can determine which of their leaders are actually alive, which of them are sick, or who is actually making the decisions.

Americans are not much better than the North Koreans. For example, there were rumors and evidence for years that Ronald Reagan was losing his mind while he was president, but did anybody notice? What did Ronald Reagan do each day? Did he actually "work"? What did George Bush do? What does Barack Obama do? How many American government officials actually work during the day?

If the American government officials are truly "working", then we should see the results of their efforts. There are hundreds of people in the Congress, but where are the results of their thousands of hours of work each week? What do people in the Congress do every day? Employees of a business have to account for their time, and many employees have to go through job performance reviews on a regular basis. However, nobody in any nation cares what their government officials do, and nobody is giving them job performance reviews.

In order to properly analyze society, we need to change our attitudes toward secrecy. We need access to information in order to understand what is going on. Crime networks benefit from secrecy, but honest people benefit when we eliminate it. Therefore, we need to create a society in which everybody has a right to investigate the lives of every other person and every event. Nobody should have a right to hide information about themselves. People today are like gears in a machine, and we have a responsibility to ensure that everybody in society is contributing to this machine rather than looking for opportunities to murder, rape, blackmail, cheat, deceive, or vandalize.

On the morning of 11 September 2001, George Bush was sent to an elementary school to read a book to children. While he was reading, America was attacked. I think that the people who staged the 9/11 attack sent George Bush to the school because it was their way of telling George Bush that he was a worthless puppet, and that he should be with people of his own intellectual level while other people were busy with important work.

Was George Bush really the president of America? Or was he just a puppet? Asking questions like that years ago would cause the conservatives to become defensive and angry with me, just like stupid savages who were attacked by a neighboring tribe. But George Bush was never president of America. He was always just a puppet. Who is the leader of North Korea today? Is Barack Obama president of America? How many Americans know who is in control of America? Do North Koreans have any idea of who is in control of their nation?

Every nation's government is disgusting, but it's not because government is inherently disgusting. It's because the majority of people will not look critically at their government officials or their nation; will not tolerate criticism no matter how constructive and useful it may be; and have no desire to think, research issues, or have sensible discussions. Most people want to live like savages.

Consider changing the course of the human race
 
Consider your options; don't be a fish
Virtually every activity in America is being judged according to its popularity and its ability to make profit. There is almost no concern for whether any person or organization has a value to society. To make the situation more ridiculous, businesses are exploiting our problems, rather than making life better for us. For example, lawyers profit from fights; Internet dating services exploit lonely people; and security companies and insurance companies benefit from the fear of crime.

There is no incentive in a free enterprise system for businesses to be concerned with society. Our government officials have no concern, either. Government officials are concerned only with pleasing their particular supporters and eliminating their competitors. 

We don't have to spend the rest of our lives pursuing profit, and we don't have to tolerate incompetent and corrupt government officials, irresponsible citizens, and crime networks. We can change the course of the human race whenever we please. We have the intelligence and the ability to create a society in which the people in leadership positions are truly concerned about all of society. We have the ability to develop new government systems, new economic systems, new school systems, new cities, and new transportation systems. Changing the course of the human race simply requires finding and getting together with other people who have the courage to wander off into the unknown and experiment with their future.


Consider changing your view of happiness

Most people believe that the key to happiness is to become wealthy, famous, and pampered by servants. Americans take this philosophy to an extreme by allowing people to become as wealthy as they please. We do not have any limits on income, material wealth, or land ownership. We are also allowed to hire as many people as we can afford to be our personal servants, and we can provide housing for them on our property.

I think the craving to be a pampered king is the result of our crude emotions. These cravings were useful in prehistoric times, but we should now consider what we want the human race to become. I don't think we should continue promoting the "Pampered King" philosophy, and I don't think the people attracted to this type of life should be in positions of leadership.

When we design a society, we have to control our emotions. We cannot design a society simply according to what will bring us the most emotional pleasure. Sugar titillates us, for example, but that doesn't justify eating sugar throughout the day and night in order to provide ourselves with pleasure. One of the paradoxical aspects of the human mind is that we are not happiest when we stimulate our emotions. Rather, we are happier when we are working with friends to achieve some goal.

As I pointed out in my "dumbing down" file several years ago, if stimulating ourselves was the ultimate source of happiness, then the ideal way to enjoy life would be to remove our brain, keep it alive in a jar, and stimulate our emotions all day, every day.

There is no right or wrong philosophy. We simply have to make decisions on what we want from life, and what we want the human race to become. In order to satisfy as many people as possible, my suggestion is for a society to be divided into semi-independent cities, and allow each of the cities to develop subtle differences in their culture. There would be lots of people who would not fit into any city, but the variety would allow a lot of people to find a city that they enjoy, and it would also make traveling to different cities more interesting.


"A man's home is his castle"?

Most people seem to fantasize about having a large home on a large amount of land, and they want to be the dictator of both their home and their property. Some people want large kitchens with lots of equipment, and some people want lots of entertainment rooms with televisions, stereos, and other toys for both adults and children. Some people want lots of transportation devices, such as bicycles, off-road vehicles, boats, airplanes, automobiles, and snowmobiles. Some people want exercise equipment, swimming pools, wine cellars, or vegetable gardens. Some people want guest rooms, and some people want rooms for nannies, gardeners, maids, butlers, and other servants.

If most people's fantasies could come true, they would provide themselves with a small, medieval kingdom, complete with servants to pamper the King and Queen of the property. And when they die, they would give the home, property, and servants to their children. We could refer to this philosophy as, "A man's home is his castle". It is the same philosophy that the Kings and Queens were following during the Middle Ages.


Or should a man's home be just a cabin on a ship?

The passengers on a cruise ship are provided with a cabin with only the basic necessities. The passengers do not own anything on the ship. They have only a few personal possessions, mainly clothing. They have no influence over the selection of officers for the ship, and no ability to influence their decisions on how to operate the ship. The passengers are merely guests on the ship, and if they misbehave or commit crimes, they will be removed. The passengers are not Kings or Queens. They do not have the authority to modify their cabin, or to hire servants to live in their cabin with them.

When your home is your kingdom, you spend most of your leisure time in your home. You will also spend a lot of your time maintaining your possessions and your land. By comparison, when you are just a guest in a City of Castles, then your home is primarily a place to sleep and relax, and most of your time will be spent outside of your home. Since you do not own any land or property, you do not have to be concerned about maintaining any of it. When you visit with friends, you do so in the city, not inside your home. You also don't have to purchase or maintain guest rooms for friends or relatives. The city would provide rooms for guests.


People should not be "profit opportunities"

In a free enterprise system, a human is just a "profit opportunity". As a result, our cities are designed for business activity rather than human life. Some sections of our city are decorative and attractive, but they were not designed that way in order to make our lives more pleasant. Rather, the sections of the city that are attractive are those that have the businesses that offer products and services. They make their area attractive for the same reason that fishermen use attractive lures. They are simply trying to lure us over to their area of the city and convince us to give them some of our money. They are not making their section of the city attractive so that we enjoy the city. They don't care about us.

The industrial areas of our cities are usually ugly because the businesses have no interest in luring us to their area, and they don't care whether their employees enjoy the area that they work in, either. The employees are just profit making tools. The industrial sections of our cities often have giant corporate logos and some type of landscaping, but the landscaping is not intended to be a park or garden for the employees to enjoy. Rather, the logos and landscaping are the equivalent of a cat spraying its territory with a scent, or gang members spraying a wall with their gang markings.

People are just "cash dispensing machines" to the businesses. Therefore, we must carry money with us in our city, and we must regularly dispense money to the various businesses. We must pay for everything; food, transportation, museums, entertainment, sports, and in some cases, bathrooms.

The industrial sections of our cities usually do not have facilities for people, such as public bathrooms, recreational areas, or parks. The industrial sections are not designed for people to enjoy.

I prefer that we design cities for human life. Every section of a city could be beautiful, including the factories and farms. If we lived in beautiful cities, we would have less of a desire to travel to other cities for vacations and more of a desire to visit different areas of our own city. We could create beautiful factories with colored glass windows, for example, and we could scatter parks, restaurants, gardens, and sports facilities around the factories, chemical plants, mines, and train stations. The rooftops of buildings could be decorative, also. The bridges and walkways could be works of art, also. The entire city could be beautiful.


Cities should be designed for living, not working

Most people think of themselves as "living in" their house and "working in" the city. As I mentioned in the first section of this file, we should design our cities in the same manner that a cruise ship is designed. We should design our cities so that we enjoy them so much that we prefer to spend our leisure time in the city. Then we would both work in the city and live in the city.

In order to make this type of change, we have to change the emphasis of our economic system from making profit to improving life for the human race. The leaders of society have to be judged according to their contributions to society, not their ability to make a profit or their popularity with the people.

The government officials would be like the officers of the ship, and they would design the city to be such a pleasant area that we enjoy spending our leisure time in the city. The government would provide us with so many free recreational centers, social activities, restaurants, sports events, and parks that we would not want to sit at home alone.

When you want some food, just walk into a restaurant or market and have something to eat. If you want to go to a museum, then just walk into one of them. If you want to go to a sports event or a social activity, just go to whichever one you are interested in. If you need to travel by train or bus, just walk onto one of them. We could also provide bicycles for free, and allow them to be dropped off at a different location than we picked them up from. If the city had artificial canals winding around it, we could provide small boats for both pleasure and for travel.

Providing the basic necessities for free would simplify everybody's life. It would also be more efficient for society because it would allow us to avoid wasting time and resources on money and financial transactions. We would want to do data collection on the products and services that are being used, but collecting data is much less annoying to us, and much less of a burden on society, than dealing with money. Without money, we don't have to waste time or resources on coins and paper money, we don't have to worry about money being lost or stolen, and we don't have to bother carrying wallets or credit cards. If we develop low-cost machines that can read fingerprints or faces, then we would not even need to carry identification.

The homes would be like the luxury cabins on the cruise ship. They would be larger than a shipping container, but they wouldn't have kitchens, garages, laundry rooms, or guest rooms. The city would be designed with homes for at least five different types of people; specifically, students, single adults, married couples without children, families, and old or disabled people. There would be an excess of homes so there were always enough vacancies to allow people to move from one home to another. The excess homes would also be available for visitors since none of the homes would have guest rooms.


Imagine a family following free enterprise to an extreme

If you consider a society as being a big family, then you can understand how requiring people to pay for everything is a burden on society, and a nuisance to the people. Consider an extreme example. Imagine a family in which the parents require their children to purchase everything. The children have to select breakfast, lunch, and dinner from a menu that has prices, and they have to pay their parents for their food. They purchase water from a coin-operated machine. The sinks are coin-operated, and they have to pay for the soap.

Their children have to pay rent for their bedroom, and there are water and electric meters in their bedrooms and bathrooms so that they can be charged for their use of water and electricity. If they want their parents to drive them to a friend's house or to school, then they have to pay the transportation costs. The children also have to pay their parents for clothing and toothbrushes, and the television, telephone, toilet, and shower is coin-operated. The parents provide their children with a computer and Internet access, but like the Internet cafes, the children have to pay for their time on the computer.

To increase the humor, imagine that the parents also believe that they can stop global warming by reducing the carbon emissions of their children. Imagine the parents measuring their children's "carbon footprint" by keeping track of how much air they breathe, and that they take this to such an extreme that they try to estimate the increase in carbon dioxide production when their children are involved with strenuous physical activities. Imagine that the parents require their children to follow complex and senseless rules about carbon emissions, carbon credits, and carbon taxes.


We must pass judgment on the personalities of leaders

Everybody makes mistakes, but we have to make a distinction between when a person makes an honest mistake, and when a person is behaving in an undesirable manner because of his personality. For example, some of the American football teams have admitted to paying their players to hurt people on the opposing team, but that was not an honest mistake. That was a common characteristic of the type of men who dominate professional sports, business, government, and other organizations.

The men who are rising to the top of society today are just like the male animals that become dominant. They are aggressive, selfish, and violent. They try to eliminate their competitors; they do not compete in a fair manner in order to inspire their competitors to do a better job. Their goal is to win, not to inspire. They fight, cheat, sabotage, blackmail, murder, and abuse. Some of them will also form friendships and marriages according to their political or financial benefits.

Thousands of years ago these men would have been considered valuable members of society. We would have been proud of them. Today, however, the competition must be fair. We are no longer ignorant savages who must fight for scarce food supplies. Humans must evolve into a more advanced creature that competes for both entertainment and to inspire other people to do a better job. We no longer have to kill or fear our competitors.

The best way to understand this concept is to realize that a society is just a large family. What would you think if one of your children was sabotaging, poisoning, blackmailing, and using other diabolical tricks to cause his brothers and sisters to do worse in school so that he ends up with the highest grades? Would you be proud of him for getting the highest grades? Of course not. You would want all of your children to compete in a fair manner, and you would be especially proud if they were inspiring one another to do a better job. Why not apply that concept to our economic system? We should be disgusted with businessmen who sabotage, plagiarize, murder, or cheat their competitors, and we should be proud of the businessmen who compete fairly and inspire their competitors to do a better job.

The majority of people today don't want to think, do any research, look critically at themselves, or do experiments. They react to criticism with anger and hatred, and they run like a frightened animal when they encounter crime or unfamiliar situations. Many of them are nice, honest, and friendly, but being nice is not good enough today.

We need higher standards for citizens, and we especially need high standards for people in leadership positions. We must pass judgment on whether a man has the emotional traits that would be suitable for a leader in this modern world. We need leaders who can listen to criticism without hatred, and who work with us to improve society.


Apologies are worthless

When our leaders misbehave, an enormous number of people demand that they apologize, but apologies don't undo the damage they did, and they don't cure a person of his bad behavior. The majority of people love apologies, but apologies are worthless. When leaders misbehave, we have to pass judgment on whether they are making honest mistakes, or whether they are exhibiting an undesirable personality. If we decide that their personality is inappropriate, then they should be replaced, and we should let somebody else have the opportunity to show us their abilities. We should try to find leaders who we can trust and who inspire us.

The Christian religion promotes the destructive attitude that we can behave in any atrocious manner we please, over and over, and that all we have to do is ask God or Jesus for forgiveness. Perhaps there is a God, and perhaps he will forgive people for their horrible behavior, but society should not follow this philosophy. We should remove people who are destructive.

I suppose that humans like apologies because animals are pacified when another animal behaves in a submissive manner. If we had robots, and if a robot did something wrong, I suspect that we would be much less angry with it if it was capable of performing a display of submission compared to a robot that remained motionless.

We have to learn to control our stupid emotions. We should not allow destructive people to pacify us with displays of submission. We should remove them from society!


*  End of part one  *

 
 
 
 
 

Important message:

Help counteract the propaganda!
Free videos at my site: www.HugeQuestions.com