Probably everybody has used the "give an inch" technique to get what they want, and all of us have been victims of it more than once. Because it is so common, all of us should be aware of it, and that should make it difficult for somebody to be successful with it. However, people are regularly manipulated by this trick. How can we become victims of a trick that is in such widespread use? Here are four reasons for this paradox:

Animals are easily fooled by the give-an-inch trick. For example, imagine that a dog has a bowl of food in the form of pellets. If you were to grab one of the pellets, the dog would become upset that you are touching his food, but he would notice that he still has his bowl of food, so he would quickly relax and resume eating. If you were to then grab another pellet, this cycle would repeat, and you could do this over and over without the dog realizing that you are taking a lot of his food.

The reason it is easy to take advantage of an animal with this trick is because animals do not think about the past or try to predict the future. They respond only to emotional stimulation. When you take a piece of food from a dog, he will be upset only as long as his emotions are stimulated, and those emotions remain stimulated only as long as you are taking the food. Therefore, if you grab the food quickly, he will be upset only for a few moments, and then he forgets about the incident. Animals behave like a person with an extreme case of Alzheimer's.

It doesn't make any sense for animals to care about abuse because they don't have the intelligence to do anything about it. The animals that were the most successful in life were those that quickly recovered from problems and returned to their important activities; namely, feeding themselves, fighting for status, and reproducing.

If an animal is abused by another animal, it will quickly forget about the incident and resume looking for food. If an animal is caught in a trap and has to chew its leg off, it will quickly recover emotionally and resume its normal life. Animals do not hold grudges, seek revenge, or analyze their problems.

Humans have enough intelligence to realize that bringing a "small number" of refugees into the nation each year will add up to a large number of people after many years, and that increasing taxes by a "small amount" will create a significant tax burden after many years. Unfortunately, most people do not want to analyze history and try to guess at what our future will be if we stay on the same course.

Most people have a very simplistic view of the future; namely, just a few vague and pleasant fantasies about their own life, such as how they will win the lottery, get married, or win an award. We prefer to focus our attention on ourselves, not on society.

When somebody abuses us, we become angry at them, but if the abuse is brief and mild, our anger will also be brief and mild. Since most people follow their emotions rather than think about what to do, as soon as our anger subsides, most people want to forget about the abuse and resume their normal life. They don't want to deal with the abuse. The person can then abuse us again, and then again.

By abusing us a little bit at a time, we never get angry enough, or remain angry long enough, to have the motivation to do something about the problem. Small amounts of abuse will bother us only if we analyze the past and notice the pattern of how we are being abused bit by bit.

When the government wants more of our money, they will encounter the least resistance when they create a lot of small tax increases that are spread over a few years rather than one large tax increase. To further reduce anger, the officials can make it appear as if they are doing us a favor by raising taxes, such as by claiming that the tax money is going to fund some useful service. For example, an official might describe a tax as a "special purpose district to fund the maintenance of the local elementary schools" rather than be honest and describe it as "an additional tax of 0.03% to increase the salaries of some government officials."

Not many people will be annoyed by a "special purpose district" that claims to be doing something useful for us because most people are not interested in analyzing what the government is doing. Therefore, they will not figure out that they are being cheated.

Another reason the government can easily cheat people is because most people don't seem to realize that when we give money to the government, the money is not going to schools or the police. It is essentially going into one government bank account, and then a small number of government officials secretly divide that money up in whatever manner they please.

The government officials can give large amounts to themselves and their friends, but give a small amount to the police and the schools. The police and school officials can then complain that they don't have enough tax money to fund their operations. The government can then claim that they need to raise taxes by just a little bit more in order to maintain the police department and public school system.

Most people will be happy to pay "just a little bit more" when they have been fooled into thinking that they are helping the schools and the police. However, the government officials will once again divide the money up in an unequal and selfish manner. They may give $50 million to Church World Service to help them bring in refugees, but they may not provide enough money for the fire department or the people maintaining the public water system. The government officials will then be able to complain that there is not enough tax money for the fire department or public water system, and so they need to raise taxes by just a little bit more in order to provide fire protection and water. This trick can be used over and over because most people have no interest in looking at the past or analyzing what the government is doing.

“Chicago will become unlivable if we don't pay more taxes!”

During 2015, Chicago's mayor Rahm Emanuel decided to use scare tactics to justify a big increase in taxes. Emanuel frightened many people with such remarks as "Our city would become unlivable".

Emanuel also lied to the people by telling them: "You're down to two choices: All these cuts in police, fire and basic neighborhood services — that's a set of choices and I'm against those cuts — or a property tax."

In reality, every government has lots of options for dealing with its financial situation. However, Emanuel was not interested in giving people an honest analysis of the situation or their options. He wanted to manipulate them. He was lying to the people in Chicago, just like the people who try to frighten us about global warming by telling us that we have only two choices; namely, we either allow carbon taxes, or the Earth will become unlivable.

Emanuel also tried to convince people that they would be considered as heroes by the future generations if they raised taxes. For example, one of his remarks was:
"With this budget, we can be remembered for stepping up to the challenge rather than stepping aside. With this budget, we will be counted among the doers rather than among those who dithered. With this budget, when we look back at our public service, our individual names will be in the history book rather than the guest book."

Emanuel's speeches to justify the tax increase ought to be used by schools as an example of how people can be manipulated. Students should be told to analyze his speech and identify as many lies and attempts to manipulate as they can find. The students should then discuss their analyses and learn from one another.

A person in Chicago would have become furious if Rahm Emanuel had reached into his pocket and took some of his money, but not many people became furious when Emanuel took their money by what we could describe as a form of racketeering, extortion, a confidence trick, or coercion.

The reason people do not become angry when government officials, journalists, or scientists lie to us is because our emotions are not stimulated by intangible concepts. For example, a "special-purpose district tax" is not an object that can poke our skin and cause pain. It is just a sequence of words that our mind decodes into an intangible concept.

Our emotions are stimulated by the signals that come from our senses, such as when the olfactory receptors in our nose react to the scent of a flower or a rotten piece of meat; when the nerves in our skin are triggered by contact with an object or by the heat of a fire; and when our eyes react to the reflected light of a baby or a dead body.

None of our emotions are triggered by concepts, such as taxes, marriage, school, crime, religion, global warming, or corruption. The only way a person will become upset with lies, corruption, and abuse is if he analyzes the issue. When we analyze an issue, we stimulate our emotions.

For example, when you look through photographs of your life, you may encounter one that causes you to think about an event that happened years earlier. If you enjoyed that event, then thinking about it will stimulate pleasant feelings, and you will enjoy looking at the photograph and talking about the event with your family and friends.

Although some photographs will stimulate your emotions directly, such as when women look at photographs of babies, and when men look at photographs of pretty women, when we think about a photograph, we can stimulate our emotions more intensely, and for longer periods of time.

Animals do not have the ability to think about issues, so they react only to the information coming from their senses. Our ability to think about issues provides us with a tremendous advantage over animals, but we can - and do! - use this talent for idiotic and destructive purposes.

For example, some people enjoy looking at photos and artwork that evoke unpleasant feelings. Why would anybody want to stimulate unpleasant feelings? I think it is because they are unhappy, and they have experienced the most pleasure when they feel sorry for themselves, or when other people feel sorry for them. We have a tendency to do whatever brings us the most pleasure, and so people who get the most pleasure from being miserable will want to make themselves miserable.

If you have trouble believing that somebody would make himself miserable in order to bring himself some pleasure, consider the people who have been accused of making themselves sick because they enjoy the attention they get.

Some people get pleasure by making other people miserable. For example, some mothers have been caught making their children sick because they enjoy the attention they receive when they have a sick child. These mothers may also enjoy making their child sick because a sick child will spend more time at home with his mother compared to a healthy child who spends more time with other children.

Here is an abstract of a report that describes a children's hospital in Atlanta that put hidden video cameras in 41 rooms. They caught 23 of the 41 mothers deliberately hurting their children, or lying to the doctors about their children's condition. A news article about it is here.

Incidentally, many people want to prevent hospitals from putting video cameras in rooms. They believe patients should have "privacy", but there are lots of reports of doctors, hospital staff, friends, and family members hurting and raping children and unconscious patients. Do you think the privacy of patients is more important than their safety? Who really benefits from the privacy?

The people who have been caught making themselves sick, or making their child sick, were not doing this for financial benefits or to avoid work. They were doing it simply to bring some pleasure into their miserable lives.

Everybody seems to accidentally make themselves miserable once in a while. This happens when we analyze a situation and come to the conclusion that we are being tormented, abused, unappreciated, or neglected. Those thoughts can trigger our emotions, causing us to feel miserable, thereby reinforcing our assumption that we are suffering.

An example are the children who make themselves miserable when they cannot have a toy that they want. They make the mistake of assuming that they are being tormented by their parents, and those thoughts trigger unpleasant emotions.

When a child sees toys on television, he will think about the toys. He will create images in his mind of himself playing with the toys. If some of those mental images stimulate pleasurable emotions, he will want that particular toy. He will fantasize about how wonderful life will be when he plays with that toy.

The child will also imagine how other children will react to his toy. If he imagines children admiring his toy, he will titillate himself with fantasies of showing the toy to the other children, and becoming the center of attention. It is possible that he will want the toy only to show it to other children, rather than to play with it. Or, if he imagines other children ridiculing the toy, he might convince himself that he doesn't want the toy, even if he really does want it.

Adults go through the same process when we select products. We imagine ourselves using the product in order to determine if it will bring us some pleasure or benefit, and we also guess at other people's reactions to it. Just like children, adults frequently purchase items that they don't have much of an interest in simply because they titillated themselves with fantasies of how other people will be impressed by the items. This is most obvious with the items we describe as "status symbols". We purchase those items because we assume the items will cause other people to admire and respect us.

When an adult notices that people are looking at his status symbol, he is likely to assume that people are admiring it. Those thoughts will titillate pleasurable emotions, even if the people are thinking to themselves, "What a jerk! How much money did he waste on that stupid thing?"

After a child has titillated himself with fantasies of how wonderful his life will be with a toy, he will ask his parents to give it to him. If his parents refuse to let him have the toy, then the child may visualize his parents taking away his toy, thereby denying him a lot of pleasure. Those thoughts can trigger his anger emotion. He might also visualize himself going to school without the toy, and seeing other children with the toy, thereby stimulating the emotion that makes him feel like a misfit.

A child can inadvertently make himself miserable when he thinks about how his parents are refusing to get him a toy. However, he is not likely to realize that he is tormenting himself. Humans are arrogant, so we want to blame other people for our problems. A child is not likely to consider the possibility that he is the source of his own misery. He is more likely to assume that he is perfect, and that his misery is the result of somebody else. He will blame his parents for making him miserable.

Our ability to stimulate our emotions can cause even more trouble for us when we do it repeatedly, thereby keeping us in a perpetual state of misery, envy, anger, or hatred. There is no harm in repeatedly stimulating pleasant memories, such as when we look at old photographs, but many people prefer to stimulate miserable emotions, so they recall unpleasant incidents during their past, and they do this year after year.

A child, for example, may remind himself over and over that his parents would not let him have a particular toy. He might keep himself angry for months or years. Some adults like to remind themselves of their dead child, thereby keeping themselves miserable for years.

Animals cannot keep themselves angry. If you take a piece of meat away from a dog, he will be furious, but after a few minutes he will have completely forgotten about the incident.

We are easily manipulated with the "give an inch" trick because we have a tendency to follow our emotions rather than think. We will not be aware of this type of abuse unless we put some effort into analyzing issues and noticing the pattern of abuse. People who spend their time entertaining themselves and ignoring the world will not notice that they are being abused.

Furthermore, because we have slightly different intellectual and emotional characteristics, when two people think about the same issue, it is possible that only one of them will come to the conclusion that he is being abused. For example, PayPal and credit card companies are taking a percentage of our financial transactions. Are they abusing us? Or are they behaving in a clever manner?

If you come to the conclusion that they are abusing us, you will trigger anger or disgust, but if you come to the conclusion that they are clever businessmen, you will admire their talent. It is your thoughts about the issue, not the issue, that stimulates your emotions and determines whether you approve or disapprove of it.

When the people in Chicago thought about the issue of raising taxes, some of them may have been attracted to Rahm Emanuel's fantasy that their names will be recorded in history books for saving Chicago from disaster. If so, their fantasies of being admired by future generations would have titillated pleasurable emotions in their mind, thereby causing them to be proud to give more money to the Chicago government.

All humans have the same emotional reaction to being poked by a rose thorn because we all have the same nerves in our skin, and those nerves trigger the same emotions in all of us. However, concepts do not trigger our emotions. Our reaction to a concept depends upon how we think about it. We have different reactions to concepts because we produce different thoughts about the issues. And the reason we produce different thoughts about the same issue is because we put different amounts of time into thinking and researching; we have different educations; and we have different intellectual abilities and emotional characteristics.

Our prehistoric ancestors didn't have to spend any time analyzing the issues of corruption, freedom, taxes, religion, or other intangible concepts, but people today need both the desire to do this, and the ability to make wise decisions.

For an example of how people can hurt themselves when they do a terrible job of thinking about issues, consider that almost all employees are occasionally criticized by their boss, and almost all are denied a promotion that they are hoping for. Employees think about these problems, but they come to different conclusions. Some employees create images in their mind of how wonderful they are, and that they are insulted and abused by a cruel boss. Those type of thoughts can stimulate anger or sadness.

When an employee makes himself angry or sad by thinking about how cruel his boss is, he will give himself an unpleasant attitude that annoys other people, and that can cause the other employees to avoid him, and possibly criticize him. When he thinks about how the other employees are treating him, he is likely to continue his fantasy that he is a wonderful person, and that he is working among people who are cruel, insulting, and unappreciative. Those thoughts can trigger his anger of the other employees. He will blame other people for ruining his life, but he is ruining it by stimulating his anger with his unrealistic thoughts.

Another area where we hurt ourselves by stimulating unpleasant emotions is the issue of privacy. We would benefit in many different ways if information about everybody's life was in a publicly accessible database. It would help us understand human health, for example, and how different regions of the world have different health problems. The database would also make crime much more difficult.

Unfortunately, animals have a fear of being watched. When people think about the issue of having information about themselves in a publicly accessible database, they visualize their friends, relatives, neighbors, and thousands of government employees looking at their medical records, school records, and job history. Those fantasies inadvertently stimulate their fear of being watched. They frighten themselves.

Of course, some people oppose putting their private information in a public database simply because they realize we would learn the truth about them, and they don't want us to know that. We should not design society for those people, however.

As society becomes more complex, we must think more often, and we must do a better job of thinking.

The third reason we are so easily manipulated is because we are naturally manipulative. Animals have no desire to "earn" anything. They intimidate, fight, and manipulate each other to get food, water, and mates. They have no shame or guilt for stealing food, raping females, deceiving one another, or intimidating other animals.

Humans are just animals with some additional intelligence. We manipulate one another on a regular basis, and without feeling guilty or ashamed. Because we are naturally manipulative, we wsually do not make a conscious, intellectual decision to manipulate people. We do not sit at a table with a pencil and paper and use our intellect to design a plan to manipulate other people. When we manipulate people, we are simply following our emotional cravings to get what we want. Therefore, we are not always aware that we are doing it. And since this behavior is natural, we are not always shocked when somebody does it to us.

We will never be successful at improving our world until we can face the reality that we are selfish, arrogant animals. When we have a more accurate understanding of human behavior, we will be able to use that knowledge to design a government system, economic system, leisure activities, and other social technology that suppresses our detrimental qualities and encourages our beneficial characteristics.

I've given some suggestions in other documents, such as how we should provide everybody with virtually the same home and level of material wealth in order to prevent people from getting involved with senseless competitive battles for material wealth. We are naturally very competitive, and we abhor losing competitive battles, even the most idiotic and meaningless battles, such as a competition to acquire the largest house, or to drink the most beer in one minute. When we realize that we have this characteristic, we can design a society to provide us with competitions that are more sensible.

Finally, the fourth reason that we are easily manipulated is because we do not want to think about problems. Animals react to problems, and very quickly; they do not put time and effort into analyzing the problem. For example, when a sheep sees a wolf sneaking up to him, his fear emotion will be stimulated. Fear has a higher priority than other emotions, so all of his other emotions are temporarily ignored, and the sheep reacts quickly by running away from the wolf. If the sheep escapes from the wolf, his fear emotion will begin to subside, and he will return to whatever he was doing, probably looking for food.

The manner in which a sheep reacts to a wolf might seem sensible, but to understand how idiotic it is, imagine yourself in the same situation. Imagine that you have decided to take a trip to Alaska. There have been wolves in Alaska that attacked humans, so imagine that you are taking a hike in the Alaskan mountains, and you notice a large wolf sneaking up to you. Your fear emotion will be stimulated. Just like the sheep, your emotions will want you to run away. Assuming that you get to an area where you no longer see the wolf, you would not relax, as the sheep would, because you have much more intelligence than a sheep. You would realize that the wolf may still be in the area, and he may be following you.

In addition to intelligence, you also have information in your memory about animal behavior. That information lets you know that wolves often hunt in packs. Therefore, even though you do not see the wolf, you would consider the possibility that there are other wolves in the area. You would not return to hiking in the forest. Rather, you would remain fearful.

It is important to understand the reason that you remain fearful. It would not be because your emotions are frightened by the wolves. Rather, it is because the intellectual area of your brain is thinking about the situation, and it is visualizing the possibility that there are wolves near you. It is your thoughts of the wolves - not the wolves - that keeps your fear emotion stimulated. To rephrase this, by thinking about the situation and visualizing wolves in your area, you stimulate your fear emotion; you frighten yourself. And you will keep that fear emotion stimulated until you are so far away from the area that you come to the conclusion that you are safe.

This issue is similar to what I mentioned in a previous document in which I pointed out that Jennifer Lawrence and other women were stimulating themselves into a state of hysteria as they imagined men looking at photos of their naked body.

When you frighten yourself with thoughts of wolves stalking you, you are doing what could be described as "mental masturbation", but you are not doing it for the purpose of pleasure. Rather, you stimulate yourself inadvertently as you try to figure out how to deal with the danger.

Because of your ability to think and stimulate yourself, it would be difficult for the wolf to fool you. For example, if the wolf were to stop moving and remain motionless, other animals would be fooled into thinking that the wolf has vanished. As soon as a sheep no longer sees or smells a wolf, his fear emotion begins to subside, and he returns to grazing, even though he may be in just as much danger.

However, a human is not so easily fooled. Even though you would not see or hear the wolf, your intellect would tell you that he may still be watching you. Furthermore, modern humans have the knowledge that wolves have excellent senses of smell, and so your intellect would tell you that the wolf might be able to smell you even though you cannot see, hear, or smell him. You might use that knowledge to walk or swim down a creek in the hope that the water will prevent the wolf from following your scent.

Since animals cannot think, they are easy to trick. For example, when a hunter is trying to a kill a duck, he might hide behind some type of camouflage near a lake, and when a duck gets near him, he shoots at it. All of the ducks will fly away or hide when they hear the noise of his gun, but when the hunter returns to his camouflage, the fear emotion of the ducks begins to subside, and they eventually return to what they were doing. The ducks do not have the intelligence to realize that the hunter is still in the same camouflaged area.

If most people were to see a wolf sneaking up to them, they would try to run away. If they had a gun, they might use it to frighten or kill the wolf. Regardless of what they do, the point I want to bring to your attention is after the event is over, most people resume their life as if nothing had happened. They will not make any attempt to analyze the situation or try to learn from it.

When we encounter a problem in life, including a wolf, our best option is to spend some time analyzing the situation and trying to learn something from it. In the case of wolves, some people who have studied wolves have come to the conclusion that it is best if we do not run away from a wolf who is close to us because we cannot run faster than a wolf. Our best option, according to them, is to try to intimidate the wolf by staring back at him and making threatening noises and gestures. A wolf might back down if we appear strong and frightening, but he will not back down if we run away like a helpless sheep.

A wolf has the strength to beat a human in a fight, so they should not be frightened by a human, but they don't understand this concept. Wolves do not think; they merely react to their emotional feelings. Therefore, if we can trigger their fear emotion, they will run away from us, even though it is illogical for them to run from a human.

I know this technique works with large, aggressive dogs because I've had to use it once, and wolves are just larger, more aggressive dogs. An exception to this rule are the pit bulls. People have been breeding them to fight, and so they don't have as much fear as a "natural" animal.

Teenage gangs and crime networks can manipulate large amounts of people by stimulating their emotion of fear. They frighten people with displays of weapons, angry facial expressions, and violent threats. The Jews also manipulate people by stimulating fear, but they do it in a more complex manner, such as by staging terrorist attacks and then fooling people into believing that suicidal Muslims are responsible. They tricked millions of Americans into visualizing caves in Afghanistan in which suicidal Muslims with laptop computers had arranged for the 9/11 attack. They fooled so many Americans into frightening themselves with those imaginary terrorists that we started a war that is still going on.

If people had better control over their emotions, especially fear, and if they would take the time to analyze problems rather than react emotionally and quickly like a stupid animal, they would not be so easily manipulated by gangs and Jews.

Now consider how these concepts apply to the driving of an automobile. Drivers occasionally encounter other drivers or weather conditions that annoy or frighten us. These incidents stimulate our emotions of fear or anger. Most people react to the emotional stimulation by panicking, swearing, yelling insults at the other driver, or making angry facial expressions. Since the emotional stimulation is momentary, the feelings of anger and fear soon subside, and then we calm down.

A more appropriate reaction to traffic problems is to analyze them in order to figure out if we can learn something from them. We might discover that we can reduce the problems by changing our driving habits, or by redesigning certain sections of the roads, or by changing some of the signs along the road, or by changing speed limits in certain areas, or by cutting down some trees to increase visibility.

Unfortunately, we do not like to analyze problems. When our emotions are stimulated by a traffic problem, we want to react to those emotions, and quickly, and after the emotion has subsided, we want to return to what we were doing as if nothing had happened.

Since we have a natural resistance to thinking, a society needs to be designed to compensate for this characteristic. One technique is to create jobs that require people to analyze problems, and another technique is to set up competitions that encourage people to analyze problems.

For example, the American government created the Department of Transportation to analyze traffic problems. Although many government employees are incompetent and apathetic, some of the people in this department have put effort into analyzing traffic problems, and they have found ways to improve the American road system.

Businesses are aware of this concept; they hire people to analyze products and experiment with improvements to them. Unfortunately, we are not yet applying this concept to most of our social technology. There are no people whose job is to find improvements to our government system, voting system, economic system, school system, holiday celebrations, sports, recreational events, social activities, language, or courtship activities.

It is important to note that hiring somebody to analyze and improve our technology will be of value only if the person has the talent and desire to do such a job. America already has thousands of people in universities, think tanks, and government agencies who claim to be experts in economics, psychology, feminism, and other social issues, but they do little or nothing to help us understand our social problems and improve our world.

Furthermore, we do not give any of them job performance reviews, and we do not replace the worst performing people. Rather, we let them give each other Nobel prizes and other awards.

In a previous document I suggested that we have a Quality Control department in the government. The reason I think we need this department is because I don't believe we can expect the citizens to put the necessary time and effort into reviewing our leaders in government, business, schools, courts, or sports. I think that the only way we can get useful job performance reviews is if we make this task a job. The job could be part-time, and it could also be temporary so that a person is not obligated to do it for years, but it has to be a job.

The American Constitution is based on the philosophy that the citizens will be active participants of society, and that they will set aside some of their leisure time to analyze political candidates and make wise decisions about voting. The free enterprise system is based on the philosophy that the citizens will also be active participants in the economic system, and that they will voluntarily spend some of their leisure time analyzing businesses and passing judgment on which of them should be driven to bankruptcy.

However, history shows us that the majority of people will not become an active participant in society. Most people prefer to spend their leisure time focusing on entertaining themselves. They do not want to spend it analyzing government officials, schools, or businesses.

We need to design our society for what we really are, not what we like to think we are. We are monkeys, and we do not want to deal with the complex problems of the modern world. We need a Quality Control department so that we people can be pushed into putting effort into giving job performance reviews to our leaders and passing judgment on which of them should be replaced. We are not going to put much effort into such tasks unless we are under pressure to do so.

As with animals, we respond to stimuli, so we work better under pressure. Even the people who have an interest in society will put more effort into their work when they are under pressure.

A Quality Control department creates the dilemma of who will give job performance reviews to the people in the Quality Control Department. Police departments have the same dilemma. Specifically, the large departments have an Internal Affairs department to review the performance of the policemen, but who watches the Internal Affairs employees?

Life is complicated, and we simply have to deal with it. Don't frighten yourself with thoughts of how complex life is. We cannot achieve perfection. All we can expect to do is improve what we have.

A Quality Control department is just an organization; just a group of people. As I have mentioned many times, the most important aspect of an orchestra, sports team, hospital, and other organizations is the people in the organization, not their internal hierarchy, job titles, or physical location on the planet.

Take a critical look at different cities and different organizations. For example, in Asia we find unbelievable levels of trash and litter in some cities. The photo below shows trash in China.

The Asians might have a lot of excuses for their litter and pollution, but don't believe any of them. The filthy areas of the world are filthy for a very simple reason; namely, the people in those areas are making them filthy. The litter in China, for example, is not the result of the Japanese, the French, or the Africans. It is the result of the Chinese people who toss trash wherever they please.

If we could create a colony on Mars, and if we took all of the people from China who are littering, and put only them into the Mars colony, then China would become cleaner than Japan, and the Martian colony would be so filthy that it looks like a garbage dump.

Or, if we took all of the people from China who spit on the sidewalks and put only them in the Mars colony, then the Chinese sidewalks would become clean and the people in the Mars colony would be constantly stepping in spit and snot.

Or, if we took all of the gang members in Los Angeles and put only them into the Mars colony, then Los Angeles would be completely free of gangs, and the Mars colony would have more problems with gang fights and graffiti than any area on the earth.

The leaders of primitive nations frequently whine that the wealthy nations should help them "fight poverty" or recover from the damage of a hurricane or earthquake, but we are fools to feel sorry for them. They are not suffering because of poverty. They are suffering as a result of their selfish, crude, animal behavior.

The poor nations of the world have more material wealth and educational materials than our ancestors, so they cannot claim that their problems are due to a lack of material wealth or education. Isaac Newton, Thomas Jefferson, and millions of other people who lived a few centuries ago, had less material wealth and education, but they fed themselves, kept their neighborhoods clean, and sometimes planted flowers in their yards.

If we look through human history, we will find that no matter what area of the world we look at, and no matter what year we look at, we will find that a small percentage of the population is neat, clean, and responsible, and another small percentage is abusive, sloppy, and irresponsible. The sloppy, miserable people tend to blame their problems on poverty or ignorance, but it is due to the lower quality of their brains and bodies. They are inferior humans.

Welfare recipients in America have a lot of time every day to do whatever they please, and they could spend some of that time cleaning their homes, educating themselves, planting flowers, picking up litter in their neighborhood, planting vegetables, and making furniture for themselves. A few centuries ago, people were doing those sort of activities. Unfortunately, the welfare recipients do not have a desire to spend their leisure time doing anything productive. They prefer to spend their time watching television, getting drunk, abusing drugs, playing with dogs, and playing video games.

Unfortunately, rather than stand up to the miserable, sloppy, irresponsible, and destructive people, we have a tendency to feel sorry for them. We also like to imagine that we are heroes when we give them money or food.

One of the reasons that India has such an extreme problem with homelessness is because their religion promotes the philosophy that people should share their food with whoever is hungry. This is allowing the homeless people to survive and reproduce, creating even more hungry, homeless people. One Hindu Temple is feeding an estimated 20,000 rats, but not because they are raising the rats for food. It is simply part of the philosophy of their stupid religion.