1983 JEWISH ENGINEERED NUCLEAR WAR FAILED?
Visiting the city should be more fun than remaining at home
As I described in the previous file of this series, I suggest that our cities be designed for people rather than for businesses. We should design our city to be so pleasant, and so full of social, recreational, and leisure activities, that we prefer to spend our leisure time in the city and doing things rather than sitting at home. I think the only way that we can entice people to leave their homes and get together with other people is to change our attitudes towards life and consider food and social activities to be a necessary expense for society. We should consider a city to be a very large family. With this philosophy, the buildings and parks of a city are analogous to the rooms and yards of our homes. Parents provide their children with sports equipment, meals, birthday parties, computers, clothing, musical instruments, and other supplies and activities, and for free. They don't charge their children for birthday parties or dinner. The children don't have to pay a fee and pass through a turnstile in order to get into their backyard. Why should we have to pay to use our city or engage in social activities?
If we apply this philosophy to a city, then the city would be free to us to use, just as if it were our home. The government would be like parents who provide us with a wide variety of activities for courtship, exercise, recreation, socializing, and entertainment. There would also be a wide variety of restaurants, all of which are provide free food. In that type of city, people would be much more likely to leave their home and go out into the city to be with other people.
In America today, so many parents spend virtually all of their leisure time at home with their children that it is considered normal for parents to spend their leisure time with children. However, I don't think this is normal or healthy for either the adults or the children. I think that if we were to design a city that was beautiful, free of crime and pedophilia, and full of activities and restaurants, then the adult men would discover that they prefer to spend most of their leisure time with other adult men; adult women would prefer to spend their time with other adult women; the teenagers would prefer to spend most of their time with other teenagers; and the mothers with young children would prefer to together with other women and children.
Let your imagination run loose on potential social activities
We need to design a city that is so desirable, and has such a wide variety of social activities, that we prefer to get out of our home and get together with other people. I think that the only way to accomplish this is to eliminate the free enterprise system and think of society as a family, and the government as parents. Society needs to support activities, and we have to design our city for us to live in rather than for businesses to sell products. In previous files I've discussed some of the changes that I would like to see with sports, hobbies, and restaurants, so in this article I'm going to try to stimulate your thoughts on the social activities that we refer to as tourism, adventure tours, and exploration. I especially want you to consider the possibility that we could be tourists in our own city; that we could be providing ourselves with a wide variety of adventure and exploration trips in our local area.Free enterprise cannot provide us with adventure trips
There are a lot of organizations offering a variety of adventure and exploration activities for children, such as the Boy Scouts, and there are organizations for adults, such as The Explorers Club. However, private organizations cannot do a good job of providing us with any type of social activities. One problem is that they must cover all of their expenses by themselves, and this causes them to impose membership fees, beg for donations, and sell products. They are primarily businesses, not social activities. This concept might be more obvious when you consider the effect that businesses have on weddings. As I pointed out in the previous file of this series, businesses are causing young girls to develop unrealistic expectations of a wedding, and they are distorting weddings from a casual social affair into an expensive and stressful financial transaction. The businesses are not trying to help the bride or the groom. Rather, they are trying to make money from all of the participants of the wedding. The businesses are analogous to fleas that are sucking blood from all of us.
We are fools to expect businesses to provide us with "social" activities. Businesses are profit-making ventures, so the only way we are going to provide ourselves with social activities is if we let the government provide them, and with no concern for profit.
America has thousands of businesses providing recreational facilities, dating services, travel tours, weddings, and other types of activities, but most Americans prefer to spend most of their leisure time inside their house with their dogs, children, video games, and television. You might respond that a significant percentage of Americans are paying for exercise facilities, but a lot of those people are doing so out of loneliness and boredom, not because the businesses are offering a truly desirable service.
There are two main reasons as to why most people in the world are spending most of their leisure time in their homes. One is that societies everywhere, especially America, are no longer homogenous. Americans do not like or trust one another very much. Many American parents are afraid to let their children wander around, especially at night.
The other problem is that free enterprise cannot create cities or social activities that are truly desirable. Our cities are haphazard jumbles of roads, buildings, and telephone wires, and the social activities are primarily profit-making ventures.
No society yet has created a city or social activities that are so desirable that people prefer to spend their leisure time in the city with other people. There are some very crowded areas of the world where people spend a lot of their time outside of their home, but that is not because their city and social activities are desirable. Rather, it is because their homes are so miserable.
We have to design cities specifically from the point of view of human life. We must also make the city and the social activities free for all of us to use. We must create a wide variety of social activities, and none of us should have to make commitments to them or purchase memberships.
When we design a city with this philosophy, then the city becomes an extension of our own home. We would be able to go into the social centers, museums, and theaters without paying fees or passing through turnstiles, and we would have access to water and food for free. The parks would be free, and so would the lakes. None of us would be irritated by telemarketing calls, salesmen that wander through our neighborhoods, or organizations that beg us for money or pressure us into purchasing products.
I find it especially irritating when organizations use children to beg for money, such as when the Girl Scouts pressure us into buying cookies. The cost of providing young girls with activities is trivial; why can't society cover those insignificant expenses? Why should young girls be sent through the neighborhoods to beg for money? Who benefits from this? How does this teach the girls something of value? The girls are wasting their time, and they are irritating the rest of us. Furthermore, most Americans are fat, so they should not be eating more cookies.
It would be much more pleasant for all of us if society covered the cost of social activities. We should consider our city to be a very large family, and our government as parents. Parents provide their children with activities, and the parents do not expect the children to pay membership fees or agree to long-term commitments. Furthermore, parents don't pressure their children to purchase cookies or donate money.
Will we treat everybody fairly when we provide free activities?
People often argue about "fairness". For example, who among us should pay the cost of building and maintaining the public roads, subways, and trains? Should only the people with automobiles have to pay for the public roads, such as with tolls or fees on gasoline? Should only the people who use subways or trains pay for those transportation systems, such as by purchasing tickets? Or should all transportation systems be free for everybody and paid for by tax money? If we make our transportation systems free, then nobody has to purchase tickets to use trains or subways, and nobody has to pay tolls to use bridges or roads. Some people will argue that it is not fair to make all transportation systems free because some people are using more of these resources than others. However, what difference does it make if somebody is getting more use from the transportation system?
A better way to look at these type of issues is from the point of view of society, not the individual citizen. If we look at life from the point of view of an individual citizen, we will waste our lives trying to figure out how to make life fair for each person. It is more sensible to look at life from the point of view of society. People should be treated as a group; as a big family; as a team; not as individuals. We should ask ourselves, "What is best for society?"
One particular person will use automobiles more than average, and another person will use trains more than average, and another person will use batteries more than average, and another person will eat more food than average, and another person will use more electricity than average. Each of us will consume different amounts of resources, but is the difference between us worth worrying about?
When we monitor everybody's use of resources and charge them for what they use, we impose a significant burden on society. The process of monitoring and billing requires a lot of labor and resources. We also have to design, build, and maintain lots of equipment, such as turnstiles. By comparison, when we provide the basic necessities for free, we eliminate that burden, and we simplify our lives.
Each human lives a very similar life. Each of us needs a similar amount of food each day, and we sleep a similar amount of time each night, and we use the transportation system directly and indirectly for a very similar amount. From the point of view of society, it is better to provide all of the basic necessities for free.
Some people will respond that irresponsible and stupid people will waste resources, and that the unemployed misfits will waste society's resources since they don't work. However, the solution to that problem is to stop feeling sorry for misfits who cannot function properly in modern society. The solution to irresponsible, destructive, and stupid people is to remove them from society. We are fools to let the misfits ruin our lives.
If society provides free social activities for all of us, some people will go to more activities than others, and they could be described as using more resources, but what difference does that make? One person may use more of one resource, and another person uses more of another resource. We need to be concerned about people who waste or destroy resources, but in a homogenous society of responsible people, everybody will live in a very similar life, and so the differences between us will not be significant enough to justify the burden of trying to charge everybody for their use of resources.
Imagine virtually everything for free
You might find it interesting to consider what life would be like in a city in which all of the transportation devices and almost every other material item is available free of charge to all adults. The only restricted items would be those that are in short supply, such as abalone, gold, and helium. If you wanted to use an automobile, truck, or snowmobile, you simply borrow the transportation device. If you wanted to travel to another city, you would simply make arrangements on an airline or train, or you would borrow an automobile and drive. If you wanted to try playing a violin, you simply borrow one. If you want to go scuba diving, just borrow the equipment. This type of city might seem unrealistic, but this philosophy is already being applied in many families. Some parents provide their children with transportation devices for free, and when the family decides to go on a vacation, they provide their children with airline tickets. The children don't have to pay for any of the transportation. Some parents also provide their children with musical instruments, computers, clothing, or cell phones.
This concept can be applied to an entire city, but it requires adults who are much more responsible than what we see in the world today. As I have pointed out many times, the higher the quality of the people in an organization, the more options they have available to them. In a city in which all of the adults are responsible and honest, all of the adults will spend most of their time contributing something of value to society. Each person would spend his leisure time in a slightly different manner, and some would use more resources than others, but the differences between responsible people are insignificant.
It would be safe to let responsible people have free access to musical equipment, trains, telescopes, binoculars, scuba equipment, bicycles, snowmobiles, and rowboats. Some children in a family use more resources than other children, but the parents don't worry about it, and neither do the children. Likewise, society doesn't have to be concerned, either. We only have to be concerned about waste, vandalism, and other destructive behavior.
Social activities require buildings and supplies
Our cities should be designed with lots of buildings that are specifically designed for social activities. Cities are currently designed mainly for shopping, and there are also lots of churches, but we don't need shopping malls or churches. We need buildings for recreation, socializing, hobbies, and courtship. Some of the buildings could have multiple uses, such as schools during the daytime, and social centers during the evenings and weekends. Other buildings could be for social activities on a full-time basis. In the world today, some organizations have so little money that they meet at people's homes or at churches, but in the city that I propose, the homes would be small, and there wouldn't be any churches. Therefore, society would have to provide special buildings for social activities.
We also need lots of recreational and exercise activities, so we need lots of parks, bicycle paths, swimming areas, and playgrounds for children. In some climates, it would be best to enclose some of the parks so that we have year-round access to the facilities, similar to that in the drawing. These enclosures could be so large that we can enclose bicycle paths, lakes, and gardens. Just as parents have to pass judgment on which activities are practical for their family, the city officials would have to pass judgment on which social activities are acceptable. For an extreme example, if a group of people asked for a social club to build rockets that took people into orbit, the city would tell them that the cost of the equipment and supplies is too much.
Of course, the government could not judge an activity simply according to its use of resources. We also have to look at the overall effect an activity has on society. When society supports an activity, it encourages more of it. Some activities are inexpensive, and they may be tolerable on a small scale, but society would not want to encourage them. For example, imagine a city providing support to the "Burnout Parties". Imagine the air pollution and noise if people around the city were doing that on a regular basis.
Can we afford to provide ourselves with free activities?
Is it practical for a city to provide itself with lots of social activities and all of the buildings, equipment, and supplies that they need? Do we really have the resources to enclose a large park to provide ourselves with year-round recreation?
Yes! It is very easy for us to produce material items and buildings. Virtually every city in the world has already provided itself with lots of churches, but no city has considered themselves to be making a sacrifice to build all of those churches. We also put a lot of resources into Hollywood movies, gambling casinos, mansions for billionaires, theme parks, and cosmetics. If we can provide Bill Gates with a home that looks like a small village, and fill it furniture and expensive electronic equipment, then we can build ourselves some nice recreational centers, and we can fill them with advanced equipment. All we have to do is change our attitudes towards life so that we can reduce the resources that we waste on pampering billionaires, titillating lunatics, and entertaining sheeple, and increase the resources that we put into providing social activities for the more advanced humans.
Activities should be free of commitments
There are only a few activities that each of us wants to do on a regular basis as a "hobby", but there are thousands of activities that we enjoy once or twice. For example, you might enjoy spending one afternoon visiting a factory to see how cotton is transformed into thread. However, that one afternoon may satisfy your curiosity. The next weekend you may want to spend on some other activity. In the world today, there are a lot of people putting a significant amount of their leisure time into one or two hobbies, but I suspect that some of these people are becoming excessively involved with their hobbies because of the lack of alternatives. I suspect that if we lived in a city that offered us a wide variety of activities, many people would discover that they would like to reduce the time they spend on their current hobbies, and occasionally try some of the other activities.
We need to provide ourselves with a wide variety of activities, and we should be able to engage in any of the activities without any commitments. The leaders of the activities should not expect any of us to come back a second time. Rather, everybody involved with the activities should have the attitude that only a small number of people are going to be interested in doing it on a regular basis. Most of us are only going to want to experience it once or twice.
In a free enterprise system, the businesses that offer activities want to attract a steady flow of money, and they prefer having members who make commitments, but when society creates the activities, the only concern is that people are enjoying their lives.
For a personal example with me, as I wrote here about a year ago, I was inspired by Katy Perry's California Gurls and decided to try singing, and it turned out to be much more difficult than I had imagined. In that document I wrote that I would try singing again, but I still haven't been able to do it. It's not because I'm embarrassed. Rather, I simply have so little interest in singing that virtually every other activity, including cleaning my bathroom, is more appealing to me. I need some type of inspiration, such as an activity in which other people are encouraging me. However, I would never want to do it if I had to make a commitment or pay membership fees. Likewise, there are certainly a lot of activities you would enjoy experiencing once or twice, but not if you had to pay a fee or make a commitment.
The leaders of social activities need a different attitude than the businessmen of a free enterprise system. They need to be like parents who are helping their children experience life.
For another personal example, I have no memory of playing a string instrument, such as a violin, but I've always wondered what it is like to do so. I can pay for violin lessons, and I can buy a violin, but I have no desire to do that. All I want to do is experiment, and possibly only for an hour. The only way I will try a violin as if I have free access to one. It would also be nice if somebody were to show me how to play, but I'm not going to pay for a tutor.
In a free enterprise system, no business can make a profit from people like me who simply want to experiment with violins. And no music teacher can make a living with people like me who are only curious and have no desire to make a commitment. However, in the society I'm proposing, somebody with some musical ability might enjoy spending an afternoon once in a while helping people like me discover what a musical instrument is.
This concept applies to everybody, not just me. There are lots of activities that you would be willing to try, but you would never make any commitment to the activity, or want to pay for it. Why not design a society that allows us to experience life? We live only once, and for only a few decades. Why should we live for money?
We should design a wide variety of activities, and we should not try to make profit from them. We should help people to discover their talents, abilities, and desires. Let people try kayaking, scuba diving, hiking, and singing. Let them experiment with cooking, telescopes, microscopes, and CNC lasers. Let them experiment with plasma torches, high-speed photography, and hydroponic farming.
It is very easy for us to create activities for one another. All we have to do is change our attitudes. For example, if you have some particular knowledge of a particular subject, such as scuba diving, snakes, or pottery, you could offer to be the leader of an activity one afternoon every so often to show people that particular subject. However, you would have to do so from the point of view that it is primarily to satisfy our curiosity rather than to make money or to train people in that field.
I have never had an interest in playing music or singing. I want to try singing again to see if I can do a better job, but I need something to put me in the mood. I have a difficult time finding the motivation to sing. Likewise, you might like to try a kayak or a plasma torch, but you may not want to do so on your own, and you may not want to pay a business to help you experience it. You may be willing to do so only if you can join an afternoon or evening activity where somebody with knowledge of the issue can help you experience it.
When I was in second or third grade, I can't remember exactly, the teacher encouraged all of us to try a musical instrument. The school provided the instruments for us, although some of us had to provide our own supplies. I chose the drums because the school had drums for us, and all my mother needed to purchase were two drumsticks. However, I have absolutely no memory of playing the drums. I can only remember looking at the drumsticks and being fascinated by the curvature at the tip. I wondered how the factories carved pieces of wood into such beautiful and smooth curves. I can remember carrying the drumsticks around and admiring them, but I don't have any memory of playing the drums.
I must have played the drums at least once, but the act of playing the drums apparently had so little significance to me that my mind never bother to remember those events. I was much more fascinated by the manufacturing of the drumsticks. Likewise, when I look at a violin, I am more fascinated by how they cut, glue, and stain the pieces of wood, and when I look at the strings on violins or guitars, I am more fascinated that some of them are pieces of metal wire that are tightly coiled around a core. The photo to the right shows what I assume is a broken string from a musical instrument. I found it a few years ago. It's only a few inches long. The core is steel, and it is wrapped with two copper wires that have a coating of something such as chrome. I suppose the two copper wires became wider and flatter as a result of it stretching prior to breaking. (In case you haven't guessed, I have saved hundreds of little objects during my life that attracted my attention, such as tungsten filaments from lightbulbs and a dead bumblebee. Fortunately, I save only tiny things, so they don't take up much space, and occasionally I discard a few of them.)
I would prefer to build a musical instrument rather than play the instrument. I would rather analyze the strings on a guitar with a magnifying glass than to play the guitar. And after trying to sing, I would never want to be a singer. I would rather clean public bathrooms for a living than sing.
The best way to design a society is to provide a lot of activities so that we can try lots of them. We can't be expected to sign membership fees or agree to long-term commitments. We need to design cities from the point of view of human life, not business activity. A lot of us have knowledge on a particular issue that somebody else is curious about and would like to experience, so if all of us would be willing to contribute what we know, we could help one another enjoy life.
Enjoy the diversity of people
The Christian view of humans is that we are all virtually the same, including the criminals, and that all of us should follow the same religion, go to church every Sunday, listen to the same sermons, and live the exact same life at home. The Christian view is that the people who deviate from the accepted behavior are evil or misguided, and they should be corrected through Bible lessons or punishments. Some Christians believe they can convert homosexuals. A more realistic view of humans is that each of us is a chaotic jumble of genetic traits, and each of us is unique. The humans that survived the competitive struggle for life were those that produced genetic variety in their children. Some of the children were stronger than others, and some were more aggressive, and some were more artistic, and some were better able to concentrate on monotonous tasks. By producing variety, different people ended up in different roles. We should learn to enjoy the differences among us, and we should be grateful that there are people who can do things that we cannot.
People who are very unusual should learn to accept this rather than complain that society ignores them. The feminine men and the masculine women, for example, should face the fact that society is not designed for them. Instead of complaining, they should find a way to use their unusual qualities. For example, some masculine women might be better than "normal" women in leadership positions, or they may be able to work in jobs that are dominated by men. Everybody should analyze themselves to find their strengths and weaknesses, and look for a way to contribute to society.
We have to design society for the fact that people are similar but slightly different. Schools should help children to understand their qualities, and we need to allow people to find jobs and social activities that they enjoy. We also need to make it easy for us to meet lots of people so that we can find compatible friends and a spouse. And we have to face the fact that people who cannot fit into society need to be removed. We cannot fix them.
|We could take adventure
trips in our own
|Creatures from the ocean
|Plants in my yard
|Food and clothing
Free enterprise cannot provide us with advanced activities
There are a variety of reasons why a free enterprise system is never going to provide us with useful social activities. One problem is that when businesses provide the activities, the activities will be designed by a small number of people. As a result, the activities can only be as good as those few people can make them. By comparison, when society provides activities, everybody in society is allowed to make suggestions on what type of activities they would like to try, and how to improve the existing activities. Also, everybody could offer to get involved in creating or leading some of the activities. Furthermore, since nobody would be able to copyright or "protect" any of the activities, everybody would be free to improve upon the existing activities, thereby allowing them to evolve through time. Another problem with free enterprise is that businesses want employees who work full-time, not one day per year. Also, businesses do not want employees working with competing businesses. As a result, if a business were to offer adventure tours or recreational events, they would want their employees to do so on a full-time basis, and they would not want their employees working with competing businesses. Those employees would have to do the same jobs over and over, day after day, decade after decade. How many people want to do that? Furthermore, when a person must lead the same type of adventure tour over and over, they start becoming dull and monotonous, like a robot.
By comparison, when society provides the activities, the government officials don't care whether people are working full-time on the activity or only one day every year. Nobody has to make any commitments. For example, a biologist who studies ants might offer to lead an exploration trip to show people the ants in his city, but he might be willing to do this only one day each year. A farmer might be willing to spend an afternoon every year giving a tour of his farm to show how sheep are raised and sheared. A business would not want to deal with thousands of people working only one day per year, and they would not want any of those people working for their competitors, but society would encourage this part-time contribution because it encourages more people to get out of their house and contribute something to society. The more people who get involved in activities, the better for all of us because it provides us with more variety, and it also reduces the burden of providing social activities. The more people who contribute, the less work each person has to do.
When society provides activities for us, the government officials are in the role of parents who provide activities for their children. The government officials would have no concern for whether the people creating or leading these trips are working full-time, or whether they are working only one afternoon every ten years. The government officials would be concerned only with whether the activities were providing society with something of value. There would be competition to create activities that people enjoy and learn from, but the competition would not be over money, so if the particular trip was a failure, it would simply be discontinued or modified. There would be no bankruptcies or financial disasters. Any equipment that was used in the failed activity would still be available for other activities. Nothing would be lost. Nobody would suffer. It would be similar to parents to design activities for their children. If a particular activity was unpopular, or if the parents decided that it was inappropriate for the children, the parents would discontinue it and try something else.
Social activities must be "social", not "deceptive"
It should be noted that these activities would be very unpleasant in society today for a variety of reasons. For example, real estate agents would go to these activities simply as a way of meeting people; lonely people would go to the activities in order to look for a potential spouse or sex partner; pedophiles would go to some activities to look at children or find other pedophiles; and politicians would go to some activities to meet people and promote themselves. In order to make our social activities more pleasant, we have to design a society that is homogenous, and we need to provide ourselves with special activities for courtship so that other activities are not contaminated by lonely people who are looking for a spouse. We also need to eliminate the need for profit so that real estate agents, salesmen, and other people are not going to activities simply as a way of promoting their services or products. We also need to find a better way of selecting leaders so that political candidates are not using social events as a way to promote themselves and manipulate us.
It's important to note that social activities will be fun only if people are "sociable". America is an example of a society that is not very sociable or homogenous. This nation has a lot of loneliness, crime, corruption, pouting, envy, fighting, yelling, jealousy, and sarcasm. There seem to be thousands of different religions in this country, and many of those people are intolerant of other religions. There are also millions of Americans with various drug and alcohol problems, and millions have violent tendencies, mental disorders, and sexual problems. There are lots of people who whine that they are discriminated against because of their particular race, and there are lots of women who whine that they are being abused by men. America is not a sociable society. It is a group of miserable people who are constantly fighting, hating, whining, and pouting. Social activities will not be pleasant unless unless a society consists of people who enjoy and respect one another.
Most people in America are under the impression that happiness comes from money and fame, but you will be most happy when you living with people you enjoy, and when you are doing things with those people. It doesn't matter what you do with them. It doesn't matter whether you are going on an afternoon adventure trip to your local park, or whether you're having a picnic with them, or whether you are going on a bicycle ride with them. What is important is that you enjoy and respect the people. The activity is not as important as the people. The material items are not important, either. It is the people, the activities, and the interactions that will bring you happiness.
In order to create a life that we are happy with, we need to design a city in which we are living with people we enjoy, trust, and respect. We need to design our cities for human life , not business transactions. We need to provide ourselves with lots of different activities to provide ourselves with exercise, learn about the world we live in, meet one another, and do something useful for society.
We should develop robotic cameras
It's extremely difficult to get video of certain events, such as fast-moving insects, flying birds, and tornadoes. It is also difficult to get recordings of events that occur very quickly, such as hummingbirds they catch insects, and events that occur over a long period of time, such as the growth of plants. The current method of getting these videos is for people to spend hours, days, and sometimes months sitting and waiting for events to occur. People who try to record data about tornadoes, for example, drive around for hours a day looking for tornadoes. This is a waste of time. It would be better to develop robotic cameras that we can place in various locations, and which watch for the events to occur. With motion detection software, or, in some cases, with radar, they could follow moving clouds, birds, or insects, and they could follow those objects with much greater precision than a human. This would make it easy to get video of insects that are crawling, flying, or moving at high speeds.
Video cameras that are controlled by computers to follow moving objects, or observe items on a particular schedule, or wait for certain events, would make it very easy for us to observe insects and other animals in their natural environment. The robotic cameras could spend months sitting in trees, crevices, creeks, or on rocks. Unlike human observers, the animals and insects would not be afraid of robotic cameras. This would provide us with incredible observations of animals.
Computer controlled cameras could be stationed in tornado areas in order for us to get better understanding of tornadoes, and to give us better warnings. We are wasting time and resources when we send people to drive around in cars to look for tornadoes. It would be better to let computers watch for tornadoes.
Once we develop cameras that are capable of locating and following mosquitoes, rats, and other pests, we could develop pest-control devices that locate, follow, and kill the pests with lasers or microwaves.
Adventure tours of your own body
When we are willing to share expensive material items, it becomes practical for us to do analyses of our own body. We could describe these as adventure tours of your own body. For example, we could provide activities in which people get together with somebody with medical experience, and they would do analyses of their blood, kidneys, or metabolism. The free enterprise system is already providing pregnant women with classes that help them learn about pregnancy and childbirth, but society can offer a much greater variety of these type of medical-related activities. We could provide activities for people who are growing old to learn about the changes that people go through as they age, and to figure out whether they are experiencing any of those changes yet, and if so, how they can counteract some of those changes with diet, hormones, or exercise. We could also have activities in which people learn how to set up an infrared camera in their bedroom so that they can record themselves as they sleep. This would help people to figure out if they are grinding their teeth, tossing and turning, or talking in their sleep.
In a free enterprise system, we are not encouraged to do anything on our own. We are encouraged to pay other people to do everything for us. By comparison, in the society that I'm proposing, the government officials want people to get involved in activities rather than be passive, pampered, babies. Society would provide us with the buildings and medical equipment that we share, and all we have to do is learn how to use the equipment. Since I also recommend eliminating the restrictions on prescription drugs, this would allow us to do a lot of our own diagnoses and experimentation.
We already have small, easy to use, computer controlled devices that make it possible for us to check our blood pressure without a doctor, and as we develop other advanced medical devices, it will be possible for us to do even more of our own diagnoses. Some of these medical devices are inexpensive, but it is wasteful to expect everybody to purchase whatever devices they need because most of the time the devices are sitting idle. It would be better for us to borrow the devices when we want them, or drop by one of the medical facilities and use them at the facility without taking them home. Furthermore, the truly advanced devices, such as those that analyze blood chemistry, digestion, hormones, and kidney functions, are going to be expensive. Also, there are some devices that you will only want to use once or twice, such as the infrared video recorders to observe how you sleep at night.
The "best" medical devices will be expensive, computer-controlled devices that are easy to operate. It would be better from the point of view of society to develop some very advanced medical equipment that is so simple to use that people can perform a lot of their own medical analyses. The city should set up medical facilities around the city, provide them with advanced equipment, and give us free access to the facilities. The equipment that we need to take home, such as equipment to record us as we sleep, would be borrowed and given back when we are done.
When you have free access to medical equipment, and when there are activities that you can go to to learn how to use the equipment, you are more likely to do analyses of yourself throughout the day and evening, which can give you a much better understanding of yourself. Your body does not remain exactly the same throughout the day and night. When you go to a doctor for a medical analysis, you will discover what you are like at that particular moment in time. If you do another analysis later in the evening, during the middle of the night, or early in the morning, you will find that your body has changed slightly.
The best way to understand yourself is to do periodic tasks throughout the day and night for possibly a few days in a row. It would be impractical to expect doctors to be doing such extensive tests for us. We need to learn how to use the equipment and do some of the tests ourselves.
We could have activities to explore the aging of our bodies.
As I described here years ago, the human lifecycle is only about 45 years. Nature never intended for us to live beyond that. Modern technology allows us to live up to 110, but we should not consider this technology to be extending our lives. Rather, we should look at people who are passing through the 45 to 60 age range as doing the equivalent of an airplane passing through the sound barrier. As we go through that age range, our bodies go through some very significant changes. For example, our oil glands stop functioning, thereby causing dry skin and dry hair, and causing older people to develop a different odor. Also, our eyes lose the ability to focus on close objects, thereby requiring us to wear reading glasses. We also go through hormone changes. Certainly you have heard the stories of mothers who were so sexually inhibited that they could not teach their daughters about menstruation, and their daughters were shocked and confused when they started seeing the changes. This same problem is occurring with aging. Most people seem to be going through the 45 to 60 age range with no idea that they are passing through a significant transition period in human life. They don't know what to expect, or what is going on with their bodies. Many of them become confused, frustrated, saddened, or shocked by the changes, and some people react in a manner that is described as a "mid-life crisis".
Human emotions developed in an era in which children picked up almost everything they needed to know simply by observing the adults around them. This modern world needs adults who can provide information to children about growth, sex, aging, childbirth, and raising children. As it is right now, most adults cannot overpower their crude emotions in regards to these subjects, and they either giggle as they try to discuss them, or they become hysterical, or they become angry or disgusted.
Human sexual behavior is almost as crude as that of the animals. For example, when a human man titillates a woman by giving her gifts and compliments, he is behaving in a similar manner as a male peacock that titillates a female by vibrating his feathers at her. Animals have sexual cravings only to reproduce, not to enjoy, think about, or discuss. Likewise, male and female humans have sexual cravings only to lure us into reproducing once in a while. We were never designed to enjoy sex, or our relationships, and we were never designed to study sexuality or discuss the issue.
We have to control our emotions and force ourselves to deal with sexual issues. The same concept applies to aging. We have to force ourselves to face the fact that we age, and we need to be able to talk about it. We should create a fantasy world in which we pretend that we start a second life at age 50.
Everybody who lives beyond the age of 45 will go through significant changes, but each of us will experience those changes at a different time, and to a different extent. All of us would benefit if society supported social activities in which adults could get together with somebody with medical knowledge and equipment so that we can study and analyze our bodies and determine how we are aging, and what we might be able to do to compensate for some of the changes.
Some people, for example, might discover that their digestive system is deteriorating in a certain manner that they can compensate for to certain extent by altering their diet, or by taking digestive aids, such as papaya or betaine hydrochloride. Other people might benefit from certain types of hormone treatments, and others might benefit by changing some of their recreational activities and lifestyle.
As we grow older, our ability to hear deteriorates, but unless we check our hearing once in a while, how will any of us know what our level of deterioration is? We can pay doctors to do these tests, but why should doctors have to perform tests that are so simple that we could do them ourselves? It would be better if society provided activities for us to explore our own bodies in our leisure time. We can do a lot of medical tests ourselves. We don't need to pay other people. Actually, I think it would be better to encourage people to be more involved in their own health and not expect other people to take care of them. This requires society provide us all with access to information, equipment, and supplies, as well as people who can provide us with advice and guidance. We can make these into social activities in which groups of people get together to explore their own body and learn about their health.
Humans must evolve into more sociable creatures
It is important to note that animals are not very "sociable". If animals had the same intelligence as humans, they would be capable of creating cities, but they would not be interested in social activities. They are much too selfish and competitive. Even the "social animals" have no significant interest in socializing. An animal exists only to reproduce. They are not interested in observing the flowers, clouds, or forests. They are not interested in getting together for dinner, a bicycle ride, or a conversation. They have no desire to organize a birthday party for their children, celebrate an anniversary, or play a game of volleyball. Take a critical look at the humans around you. Not all humans are equally sociable. Some people, for example, are extremely quiet at dinner tables, and some have almost no interest in learning about the world or getting together with other people to do something as a group. The people who tend to become criminals and gang members are perhaps the best example of crude, anti-social people. The members of a crime gang appear to be "members" of an organization, but the bonds between those members are not much more advanced than the bonds between a pack of hyenas. The behavior of the gang is also very crude; they don't actually do anything useful together. Rather, they behave like animals who mark their territory, fight over dominance, and reproduce.
All humans are similar to animals, but most of the people who become criminals seem to have a greater similarity to animals. Compared to you and I, they have less of an interest in society, and a much greater interest in sex, babies, money, food, status, and territory. We like to think of criminals as just ordinary people who ended up involved in crime for mysterious reasons, but we have to face the fact that people vary in their mental qualities, and some people are more like primitive savages. The human race has to evolve into an emotionally more advanced creature. Humans in the future have to be less selfish and more interested in living and working with other people.
Would you be happy in a future world of robots?
Have you ever wondered what life would be like for you if we had robots that were capable of doing all of the work that we needed to do? Imagine living in the distant future in which robots are doing virtually everything, and humans can spend all day, every day, doing whatever they please. What would you do each day if you didn't have to do anything in particular? This is the situation some rich children find themselves in. Prince Charles, for example, doesn't have to do anything in particular. So what does he do each day? What does Queen Elizabeth do? When an animal is provided with whatever it needs, it spends a lot of its time sleeping. It doesn't want to socialize, learn about the world, or meet new animals. It has no desire to do anything with its life, other than eat, reproduce, and fight over status and territory.
If we had robots doing all of the work for us, most people would waste their life trying to titillate their emotional cravings for babies, sex, food, and status. The reason I say this is because most people are spending their leisure time that way right now. Some people won't even glance at the evidence that Jews did the 9/11 attack. They want to entertain themselves, not think about society, or do some work for society. They want to do things for themselves, just like an animal. Humans must evolve more advanced emotions in order to truly enjoy this modern world.
Did we almost have a nuclear war in 1983?
Somebody told me about this documentary that shows that Russia and America almost started a nuclear war in 1983. I suspect this documentary was produced by Jews who are trying to do "damage control". As is typical of their propaganda, they try to blame all of the strange behavior on incompetent and paranoid government officials and crude Russian computers. However, it appears to me as if Jews within the Russian and American governments and militaries were struggling to trick the Americans and Russians into attacking one another with nuclear bombs. Ronald Reagan appears to be just another mindless puppet who was secretly manipulated by Jews. This documentary claims that a Russian man, Stanislav Petrov, is one of the people who could be credited with preventing the war because he disregarded three consecutive orders from their security system computer that America had launched nuclear missiles and that he must immediately retaliate by launching the Russian missiles.
It's interesting that Petrov was not normally responsible for monitoring American nuclear missiles or making decisions about whether Russia should retaliate. One of the characteristics of some false flag operations is that key personnel mysteriously change for no apparent reason. The Jews want to replace personnel prior to a false flag operation for several reasons, such as to remove members of their organization so that they can appear innocent; to replace people that they don't think are gullible enough to be fooled into following the plan; and to set up patsies to take the blame. I suppose the Jews had removed the man who normally was in that position so that Petrov would be the sucker who would take the blame for accidentally starting a nuclear war. However, Petrov had the sense to look at the radar images, think about the issue, and come to the conclusion that the computer was making a mistake. When the Jews discovered that he had disregarded the order to launch an attack, they had the computer send out a second demand to attack, and when he disregarded that, they must have become very frustrated and sent out a third demand. However, by the time he disregarded the third order, other Russians were getting involved and wondering what was going on, and I suppose the Jews decided tnot to send out a fourth order because they were worried that somebody would discover that Jews were sending the orders, not the computer. However, my interpretation of this documentary is that the Jews continued trying to trick the Russians into launching an attack during the following days, but none of the other Russians were fooled, either.
This documentary claims that many Russian government officials had been fooled to such an extent that they had gotten their nuclear missiles ready to launch and were just waiting for confirmation that America was attacking them. It makes me wonder what would the world be like today if the Russians had been fooled into launching an attack on America. We would have brought incredible damage to both of our nations. Would Israel be in control of the world by now? I also wonder how many other times the Jews tried to instigate a nuclear war. As I mentioned at the beginning of my audio file for 2_July 2008, I wonder if the movie Doctor Strangelove was based on one of their failed attempts.
Men must become more cooperative
Take a look at the activities that men engage in. Notice how many men are engaged in intensely competitive struggles for plastic trophies, money, or status. How many men can play a sports game without worrying about winning a trophy or money? How many men can play sports without deliberately hurting one another? And notice the cheating, blackmail, sabotage, and treachery as these men struggle for their silly goals. How many men can compete with one another without resorting to cheating?
Somebody recently pointed out to me that some men in the British military created the Tough Mudder events for themselves. They refer to it as an "event" rather than a "contest" or a "competition" because there is no winner, no loser, no trophies, and no prize money. They created the contest for exercise, training, and fun. Because there are no winners or losers, the participants can help each other. Actually, they are expected to help each other. The Tough Mudder event was based on the physically demanding training that the British military men go through, but the concept of the event appealed to some people outside of the military, and in other nations, and also to some women. The event is proof that some men and women are capable of getting together for activities without any reward, and without fighting or cheating. They get together simply for exercise, entertainment, socializing, and testing their physical and mental abilities. It also shows that they can compete in a fair manner, and help their competitors to get through the course and become better at it. Note that when they are helping one another, they are not feeling sorry for losers, or encouraging pouting or whining. Rather, they are helping people to get through the course.
Imagine if the people in leadership positions had that same type of personality. Imagine businesses developing products and services without fighting, cheating, abuse, lies, and manipulation. Imagine scientists, engineers, carpenters, business executives, farmers, technicians, and other people helping and encouraging their competitors to become better rather than sabotaging, blackmailing, and intimidating them.
Unfortunately, we do not find this type of personality in the type of men who dominate the world. Instead, we are dominated by men - and women! - who are abnormally aggressive, crude, selfish, and animal-like. The communist nations are an excellent example. China, for example, has more resources, land, and people than other nations, so they don't need to fight for more territory. Rather, they need to deal with their social and economic problems. China is an incredibly dysfunctional society, and there is extreme suffering. For example, have you seen the reports of Chinese people who are selling one of their kidneys in a desperate attempt to make some money?
A nation in which people are are so desperate for money that they will sell their kidneys does not need to waste any of their time or resources on fights over worthless land. However, the Chinese government officials don't show much interest in analyzing China's problems or making China a better nation. Rather, they are like wild dogs that are more concerned about eliminating competitors, acquiring more territory, and proving to the world that they are the top dogs in the hierarchy. For a current example, as of June 2012, some Chinese government officials are wasting some of their time on fights with Japan over the nearly worthless Senkaku Islands. If you were given dictatorial control of China, would you suggest starting a war and killing your own people over those islands? What would your priorities be if you were the dictator of China?
As of July 2012, China is fighting with Vietnam over some islands and the oil that may be in the area. China already has more resources than almost every other nation, so they don't need to fight for Vietnamese oil. China is behaving like an extremely wealthy, bratty child that is grabbing everybody's toys.
As I will show in the next file of this series, China has recently built some impressive apartments, hotels, and other buildings in Macau, but they are only for gambling and prostitution. The Chinese could be inspiring the entire world by building beautiful cities for themselves, but their leaders have other priorities. Likewise, Argentina has a lot of problems, and their leaders should be focused on improving their nation, but some of their leaders want to waste resources on fights over the worthless Falkland Islands.
Who is to blame for the incompetent leadership in China and Argentina? Now that I am aware of how the Jews are getting control of America's media, government, police departments, businesses, schools, charities, churches, and other organizations, I suspect that the Jews are also manipulating as many other countries as they can it away with. The disgusting political leaders in America are not entirely due to the American voters. The Jews are partly to blame because they secretly give financial and media support to the criminals and blackmailed puppets that they want in leadership positions. I suspect that the Jews are doing this in other nations, also.
I suspect that the Jews are secretly promoting current criminals and blackmailed puppets in China, Argentina, Venezuela, Germany, and other nations. This would explain why government officials everywhere are have dreary, bland personalities; never say anything intelligent; never seem to be happy; and refuse to expose or complain about crimes by Israel or Jews. The Jews are also secretly pushing all nations into fighting with their neighbors, and having a greater tolerance for gambling, prostitution, and crime.
Neither China nor Argentina needs more land or resources. All nations need better leadership. We also need citizens who are more honest, more responsible, more interested in thinking, and less interested in acting like an animal. If the Chinese people, for example, would spend just a few minutes thinking about the Senkaku islands, they would realize that nothing is going to improve in China if they get control of the Senkaku Islands. Regardless of who is in control of those islands, some Chinese people will continue to sell their kidneys, and some Chinese parents will continue to sell their children into sex and labor slavery, and some Chinese people will continue to suffer malnutrition and monotonous diets of rice, and some Chinese women will continue to travel to Macau to work as prostitutes.
Likewise, the people in Argentina need to spend only a few moments to figure out that their life will remain just as miserable even if their nation gets control of the Falkland Islands. The people in Argentina and China need to get rid of their criminals and corrupt government officials, not fight over worthless islands.
The majority of people behave like savages. They allow crime networks to manipulate and abuse them, and they continuously elect and support incompetent governments. The majority of people in Argentina and China have the intelligence necessary to realize that it is foolish to fight over a worthless island, but the majority of people have no desire to think about these issues. In order to improve the world, we have to suppress the horde of sheeple in addition to removing the incompetent governments and crime networks.
Why are some areas in dispute?
Why are nations still arguing over boundaries? Why didn't our ancestors settle these border issues long ago? The reason is because our ancestors didn't want or care about certain, nearly worthless islands, mountain tops, and strips of barren desert. Our ancestors didn't care who owned those pieces of land. For centuries people have avoided those areas. So, if these areas are so worthless, why are people fighting about them today? The reason is that the nations today have the equivalent of intelligent dogs in leadership positions. Those government officials claim to be patriotic people who are defending their nation, but in reality they are crude savages who are starting senseless fights over worthless territory. The Chinese an Argentine governments believe that they can resolve the border disputes with a military force, but the best way to resolve the border disputes is for every nation to replace their government with a better group of people.
Are Americans becoming more intelligent?
|A recent study of 1500 American skulls came to the conclusion that the skulls of Americans today are significantly larger - by an average of 200 cm³ - than the Americans of the mid 1800s. Some people interpret this as a sign that Americans are becoming increasingly intelligent, but there are other ways of explaining this. For example, America was originally a dumping ground for criminals, and a refuge for misfits and religious fanatics. A large proportion of them may have had small brains. By 1900, however, Europeans with more intelligence may have begun emigrating to America.||
Many of the early American immigrants may have been crude creatures.
If we were to study the ears of early Americans, we might find that a greater percentage of those original Americans had ears that stuck out, as with John Smith in the photo. If we were to look at people's necks, we might find that more of the early Americans had short, Neanderthal-type necks. However, we would be foolish to conclude that our ears and necks are changing as a result of evolution or better diets. We all love praise, but unfortunately, praise doesn't do us any good. We are not going to understand ourselves if all we do is look for ways to praise ourselves. The only way to improve something is to look critically at it and find flaws, mistakes, and problems. You cannot improve something by looking for admirable qualities. In order to improve America, we need to take a serious and critical look at ourselves.
The Americans like to boast that they are the greatest people in the world, and there are indeed some impressive people in this nation, but I think that the majority of Americans are just like the Statue of Liberty describes them. This is why the nation is being destroyed by a small network of Jews. If the majority of Americans were truly as great as they boast, the Jews would not be able to get away with unbelievably obvious and incredibly destructive crimes, such as blowing up the World Trade Center buildings while broadcasting the demolition on television.
What is a "human"?
Animals do not care whether we treat them nicely, or whether we torture or rape them. Animals do not care whether they live in a beautiful city, or a toxic, radioactive waste dump. Animals also have no concern about the quality or nutritional value of their foods, or whether arsonists burn the forests that they live in. If a human also has no concern about the quality of his life, is he really a "human"? If you show somebody overwhelming evidence that the Jews are responsible for the 9/11 attack, and if he shows no concern, is he really a "human"? Watch that documentary about the potential nuclear war in 1983. If evidence comes out that the Jews tried repeatedly to instigate nuclear wars between America, China, and Russia, and if some people do not care about this problem, how can we justify describing them as "human"? What kind of "human" doesn't care if people instigate a nuclear war? What kind of human doesn't care that Jews are lying about the Holocaust? This is the type of crude behavior that we expect from animals.
We have to set standards on human behavior, and we have to judge everybody by their effect on society. If a human behaves like an animal, then we should consider him to be like an animal, not a human.
How many people in China care that some of their citizens are selling their kidneys? How many people in Thailand care that some of their teenage boys are castrating themselves so that they can become better prostitutes? People who don't care about these issues are not really "human". They are more like animals. When we allow these crude people to dominate the world, then we end up with a world that is dominated by primitive creatures who don't care about crime networks, corruption, suffering, wars, or the quality of anybody's life. These crude people should not be allowed to vote, influence business activity, or have any effect on society. They should be regarded as "second-class citizens", or as "talking monkeys", or as "sheeple".
The world cannot improve when it is dominated by people whose only concern is feeding themselves, reproducing, and fighting over status and territory. The world will improve only when we suppress the criminals, sheeple, and parasites, and when we put people in control of the world who are truly interested in the quality of life for all of us, and who want to work together to improve society.