Friday, December 11, 2009

Before I continue where I left off in part 3, I wanted to mention some peculiar aspects of the Tiger Woods incident. One is that there's evidence that many people have known for years that Tiger Woods was involved with other women. For example, the waitress in Las Vegas said that Woods never tried to hide their relationship. She said that they would go to places together, and that people would take photographs of the two of them together.
nydailynews  jamie_jungers_relationship

So why are the Jews in the media suddenly discovering all of these women and releasing all of this information? Why don't the Jews investigate Barney Frank's sexual escapades with young boys?

All of this is evidence that Tiger Woods had been protected for years, just like Barney Frank and other members of this Jewish crime network, but for some reason the Jews decided to release their information about Tiger Woods in an attempt to ruin his life.

The most interesting aspect of the Tiger Woods incident is that one of his women claims that he told her that his marriage was "only for publicity".
tmz tiger-woods-elin-nordegren-alleged-mistress-marriage-sham

If Tiger Woods actually made that remark, and if he was being honest, then it's evidence that he's another victim who was tricked into joining the New World Order.

I think the Jews pursue everybody who becomes influential and try to convince them to join the secretive New World Order. And they also try to set people up for blackmail so that they can control them and prevent them from exposing the New World Order as a Jewish trick to take over the world.

One reason I say this is because ever since 2002, when I became influential in the so-called 9/11 truth movement, it has felt as if packs of Jewish hyenas have been pursuing me non-stop to either influence me, set me up for blackmail, become my friend, or manipulate my opinions. And I've noticed that other people who become wealthy, influential, or famous also have packs of Jews pursuing them all the time.

So, my interpretation of the Tiger Woods incident, as of today, is that the Jews noticed that he excels at golf, so they began to pursue him, and they tricked him into joining the New World Order. They also arranged for him to be set up for blackmail, such as by providing him with certain women. And I suppose they tricked him into getting married to that Swedish woman by telling him that it would promote interracial and international relationships, and I suppose his wife was willing to do it because she wanted to be rich and famous.

However, I don't think the Jews promoted that marriage to promote cooperation between different nations or races. I think the Jews are trying to get us accustomed to the idea of everybody working together so that it's easier for them to convince us to join the European Union, or the North American Union, and eventually a world government.

There's nothing wrong with different nations and races working together, or even forming a world government, but the Jews don't create these organizations to help the world. Instead, these organizations are extremely secretive because they're actually just tricks to allow the Jews to get control of our governments, monetary systems, militaries, police departments, businesses, schools, and media. The Jews are trying to conquer us.

By the way, the Jews may have selected that particular Swedish woman because her mother is a member of the Swedish government, and perhaps the Jews thought that this would give them more influence over Sweden.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbro_Holmberg

Note: Somebody pointed out to me that it would be more accurate to describe her mother, Barbro Holmberg, as a Swedish "politician" rather than as a "member of the Swedish government".

Perhaps she thought he had survived and was living in the streets. She provided some emotional stories and photos for the nation. News reports claim that his body was found several months later, although I'm not aware of any explanation for how his body survived when everybody else and every piece of concrete was pulverized into tiny particles.
vancouversun Rachel+Uchitel+allegedly+linked+Tiger+Woods

To further make her look suspicious, about a year earlier, the daughter of Jerry Lewis said she heard a rumor that some of Rachel's relatives were part of "The Syndicate", but the article doesn't explain anything about "The Syndicate".
• i-newswire.com/pr225691.html
• eonline.com/uberblog/b155696_five_things_you_need_know_about_tiger.html

I would interpret all of this as evidence that she and her family are part of the criminal Jewish network that was responsible for the 9/11 attack, and that she was one of the Jews helping to blackmail Tiger Woods.

Furthermore, I doubt if it's a coincidence that the mysterious website WhatDoesItMean.com posted an idiotic article that blames the CIA for the Tiger Woods incident. That site seems to do damage control for Jews by shifting the attention away from Jews.
whatdoesitmean.com/index1307.htm

But why are the Jews turning against Tiger Woods right now? One of many possibilities is that some of the people that the Jews fooled into joining the New World Order are starting to rebel, and so the Jews decided to intimidate them. If this is the case, let's hope that their victims realize that their life will become much better if they help us destroy this crime network. It's better that they suffer some embarrassment and help us to get rid of this crime network than to continue being puppets.

There have been other strange events recently, but I'll mention only one more. On October 31, 2009, a black man supposedly shot at two policemen while they were sitting in their car in Seattle, and he killed one of them. A month later, on November 29, another black man supposedly killed four policemen who were sitting in a cafe.

We're supposed to believe that black men in Seattle are on some type of police killing rampage, but I suspect that Jews are somehow involved and the black men are simply taking the blame. And I doubt if it's a coincidence that the mysterious website WhatDoesItMean.com blames the killings on a secretive militia organization.
whatdoesitmean.com/index1304.htm

I suppose that the Jews are killing the honest policemen, so if you know of people in the police or military, help them find the courage to look at the evidence that Jews are responsible for 9/11, the world wars, and almost every other disaster the human race has suffered from. And help the police understand the "Wolf In Sheep's Clothing Trick" so that they realize that some of police officers, sheriffs, and military officials are actually criminals.

And help people realize that this Jewish crime network is enormous in size, and that Jews all over the world are pumping out an enormous amount of propaganda to shift attention away from Jews and blame every problem on the US military, or the CIA, or some other group. For example, the Jewish professor Michel Chossudovsky in Canada posted an article in October 2009 that claims the Pentagon is responsible for Obama's Nobel Peace Prize.

He claims that the Pentagon did this to provide "legitimacy to the illegal practices of war and the military occupation of foreign lands". He also writes that "It erases the war crimes committed both by the Bush and Obama administrations." He also makes such incredible accusations as: "Both the Obama administration and NATO are directly threatening Russia, China and Iran..."
globalresearch.ca Article Id=15622

That Jewish professor is trying to convince us that the US military is a group of violent maniacs, and a threat to the world. It's sad that the US military allows college professors to make such accusations. Professor Chossudovsky should be considered as an enemy of America for trying to incite hatred of the US military and for making false accusations that he has no evidence for. And he does this year after year, and he works with the Republic Broadcasting Network in Texas, and other people in the so-called truth movement. He is part of a gigantic network of criminal, disgusting Jews.

However, it's also important to keep in mind that this Jewish professor may be telling us the truth. As I described in other documents, a con artist can deceive you by telling you the truth if he doesn't give you the complete truth. So we should consider that the Jewish professor is telling us the truth when he tells us that US military officials pressured the Nobel committee into giving the peace prize to Obama, and that the Obama administration and NATO are threatening Russia, China, and Iran.

However, by ignoring the issue of exactly WHO within the US military and government is responsible for these crimes, the professor is trying to fool us into assuming that non-Jewish Americans are responsible, when in reality it is certainly the Jews who have infiltrated our society and are trying to take control of us and start fights.

The other day somebody sent me a link to the audio of a Holocaust memorial ceremony in April 2009 by the Jewish Council of North Central Florida. Here is an excerpt of one of their concerns:
Jordan Dern:

“How do we remember the Holocaust going into the future? The Holocaust ended nearly 65 years ago. For many, even those of us who witnessed the Holocaust through our own eyes, or saw it through the eyes of our parents, the anger is fading. Is that good? Or is that bad? How do we sustain a hatred and an anger towards the German people? Should we try to sustain it? For how long? Especially now that almost all of the murderers are long dead. Sure, some of us still won't buy a Mercedes, but for the rest of us, isn't enough, enough? Does time really heal wounds?”
wuftfm.org/archive/YomHaShoah09.htm

How do they sustain the hatred and anger towards the German people? This is one of the issues that concerns many Jews. The Jews don't ask each other how they can become better friends with us, or how they can cooperate with us to make life better for everybody. No, they're not interested in becoming friends with us or cooperating with us. They want to sustain hatred and anger. They want to instigate fights between us. They want to manipulate and deceive and cheat and murder.

Their behavior reminds me of dogs. I've seen people with two dogs put a bowl of food in front of each dog, and even separate the bowls by quite a distance, but often one of the more aggressive dogs will ignore his own food, and grab at the other dog's food. This behavior may seem irrational, but the only goal of an animal is to reproduce. Animals are incredibly selfish. They regard other animals as enemies that must be destroyed or conquered.

The Ashkenazi Jews don't want to live in their own homeland with their own people and eat from their own bowl of food. Instead, they want to come to our nations, but not because they want to be our friends, and not because they appreciate us or want to cooperate with us. Instead, they are trying to take what we have. They don't regard us as friends. They regard us as enemies that must be conquered or destroyed. And they are intensely envious of us.

According to the Wikipedia article about German Jews, a rabbi in Berlin claims that Germany is the only European country with a growing Jewish community. Perhaps he is incorrect, but it's definitely true that the Jews don't want to live with their own people. They would rather live with us; with people they are intensely envious of and who they want to murder, cheat, and abuse.
wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Jews#Jews_in_the_reunited_Germany_.28post-1990.29

However, the Jews are not evil, rather, they behave like animals, or primitive humans. And that would explain why so many of them have the visual appearance of a Neanderthal, and why so many of them have trouble pronouncing the modern words in the English language.

By the way, Jesse Ventura, who was a Navy SEAL and a governor of Minnesota, recently finished producing several videos for television about conspiracies. The first video was broadcast about a week ago. He talked about a facility in Alaska that is referred to as HAARP, and on December 8, 2009 his video about the 9/11 attack was broadcast.
eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=8708

Ventura's documentary shows that the military is hiding something about that HAARP facility. However, if you follow a very simple rule, which is to be very suspicious of people who lie to you, then you will be suspicious of all of the people who expose that HAARP facility.

In case you haven't noticed, the people who expose HAARP as an incredibly powerful military weapon that can alter the weather, and affect the human mind, and possibly create earthquakes, are also protecting the Jewish involvement in the Holocaust, the world wars, 9/11, and other crimes. And they give publicity only to other liars, never somebody like me. Don't assume that this group of liars are telling you the truth about HAARP when they lie about so many other issues.

I agree with Jesse Ventura that the military is hiding something about the HAARP facility, but I think the Jews and other parasites within the military are hiding a research project that is going nowhere, and is wasting taxpayer money. So the Jews are using this facility for propaganda purposes. If you believe their stories, you will look like a fool when you claim that there's a military weapon in Alaska that can control the weather.

Now to finish where I left off in part 3.

I ended it by mentioning that cities should be able to set standards for behavior and evict the people that they don't like. I don't think we should try to control people with rewards or punishments.

We should allow cities, and even neighborhoods, to be slightly different from one another, and we should help everybody find a neighborhood, a city, and job where they fit in with other people.

We should stop trying to force men and women to be unisex creatures, and stop trying to force everybody in the world to be identical to everybody else. Nobody is trying to force all of the flowers to interbreed and create only one species of flower. Why should all of the different groups of people be forced to mix together, interbreed, and create only one type of human?

Nobody is harmed if there is a city of Japanese people, and another city of Chinese people, and another city of Scandinavians. Each of those cities could be different, with different customs for food, clothing, and holidays, and they could even have different school systems, or economic systems, or government systems. As long as the people in those cities behave in a responsible manner, then each city would be analogous to a patch of flowers in a garden. The Earth could be a garden for humans, and each city could be patches of human flowers.

The human race may eventually create a world government to help supervise and coordinate the different groups of people, but we don't need to force everybody to mix together, interbreed, and be identical to everybody else. The world is not suffering because different groups of people want to live in a slightly different manner, or because we have different opinions about life. Instead, the world is suffering because some of the people are destructive, parasitic, or irresponsible.

A gardener doesn't try to fix the weeds by punishing them, and we can't fix the human weeds with punishments, either. We have to evict them from society.

It's true that you can use rewards and punishments to train a monkey or a lion to be a household pet, but they're still wild animals.

I expect some people to accuse me of being cruel for suggesting that the destructive people be exiled and prevented from reproducing, so I decided to explain some of the advantages to a society that follows this philosophy.

Specifically, I want to show you that if a city evicts the people who are destructive and parasitic, they will create a society in which everyone can trust one another and work for the benefit of all, and that in turn provides them with a lot more options in regards to their economic system, government, and other social technology.

At the other extreme, a society in which the people are irresponsible, destructive, violent, and dishonest will be more inefficient, and they won't have as many options in regards to their society because they will have to waste a lot of their time and resources on security devices, law enforcement, and other attempts to control their bad behavior.
 

It might be easier for you to understand this concept if you consider how it applies to small groups of people, such as families. Consider the issue of food. When everybody in a family is honest and responsible, the kitchen can be stocked with food and everybody can have free access to that food.

This is much more efficient compared to a family in which the people are so badly behaved that they have to put locks on the kitchen cabinets and refrigerator to prevent one another from wasting food or from stealing food that somebody else purchased.

And imagine a family that is so violent and selfish that it's not enough for them to put locks on the cabinets or refrigerator. Imagine that they have to also install security cameras and hire security guards to prevent them from vandalizing the kitchen and stealing each other's food.

Or imagine an even more violent family in which the security guards have to carry guns, and the guards have to be in control of all of the food, and they have to pass food to the family members through slots within bulletproof windows.

Next consider the issue of preparing and cleaning up of meals. At one extreme, all of the family members are well behaved and willing to contribute to the family. If the mother provides the meals, and if she needs some assistance with the preparation or cleanup, then all she has to do is ask for some assistance, and her children and husband are happy to come to her aid. And because all family members are willing to contribute, she would be able to prepare meals that would require more work than she is capable of by herself, and she wouldn't need to hire people outside of the family to help with the preparation or cleanup.

At the other extreme is a family in which the children and husband refuse to provide assistance with the preparation or cleanup of meals. In that family, the mother would have to make meals that are simple enough for her to do all by herself.

And imagine an even more extreme case in which her children and husband are so destructive and obnoxious that they routinely have food fights and break a lot of utensils. This would waste a lot of their money, and it would put a burden on the mother because she has to clean the mess up all by herself.

And if the family was large and messy enough, it would be possible for the family to create a mess that is larger than the mother could clean up before it was time to provide the next meal.

As a result, before she could finish cleaning up from the food fight at breakfast, it would be time for her to provide lunch, and before she could clean up the mess that her children made at lunch, it would be time for her to serve dinner.

This concept applies to other aspects of life in the family. For example, consider the issue of clothing, furniture, and the house itself. At one extreme, if the parents and children help to clean and maintain their home, furniture, and clothing, then everybody could have free access to every room in the house and all of the furniture, and the parents could provide free clothing for the children.

At the other extreme are family members who are so irresponsible and obnoxious, that they wouldn't take care of their house, or any of their furniture or clothing. Their house would be constantly needing repairs, and they would waste a lot of money dealing with all of the damaged furniture and clothing.

And imagine a family that is so violent and destructive that they steal money and items from each other, vandalize one another's possessions, and even rape one another. That family would have to put locks on their bedrooms, and hire armed security guards.

And consider how this applies to the utilities, such as electricity, natural gas, and water. If all family members are responsible, then nobody will waste any resources.

At the other extreme, a family that does waste resources will have enormous utility bills every month. They might react by installing a coin operated washer and dryer in their laundry room to prevent people from wasting utilities. And they might put electrical meters in everybody's bedroom so that each person can be billed separately. They might even go so far as to install a coin-operated sink and stove in the kitchen.

These concepts apply to all groups of people, regardless of whether it is a family, a business, a social club, or a nation. The more honest and responsible a group of people are, the more efficiently they can operate and the more options available to them in regards to how their organization is designed. Conversely, the more violent, dishonest, and irresponsible a group of people are, the more of their time and resources have to be wasted watching over one another, and cleaning up after one another.

These concepts apply to people on a ship, also, regardless of whether it's a commercial fishing ship, or a small recreational boat, or an aircraft carrier. Consider that the approximately 6000 adults that live on an aircraft carrier could be described as a floating city. However, there are some very important differences between life on an aircraft carrier and life in the typical city of today.

The sailors on the aircraft carrier live as if they are members of a large family. For example, the sailors don't need real estate agents to help them find or purchase a place to live on the ship. Instead, every sailor is provided with the ship's version of a home.

Furthermore, their homes are mainly just a place to sleep. Their homes don't have kitchens or laundry rooms or garages. As a result, the sailors don't have to worry about purchasing or maintaining refrigerators, or dining room tables, or washing machines.

Imagine this concept applied to a city on the land. Imagine a city in which the government provides everybody with their basic necessities, such as a home, meals, and laundry services.

You might respond that sailors, especially those on submarines, are suffering from this type of situation with extreme overcrowding and poverty, but don't look at their cramped living conditions. Their living conditions are crude because Navy ships and submarines were never designed for human comfort, or for raising families. Navy ships are nothing more than giant, floating military weapons that people are living inside of. Likewise, a military base was never designed to be an alternative to our cities. They are just temporary housing areas for military personnel.

At some point in the future the human race is going to build some new cities. If they ensure that everybody in the city is honest, responsible, and willing to work together for the benefit of all, then their city would be able to operate very efficiently, and they would have a lot more options available to them.

To help you understand these concepts and to show you some of the incredible opportunities the human race has available to it, I'll discuss some of the issues we need to think about before we attempt to create a new city, and I'll describe a city that you may have never considered; namely, a city that operates in a similar manner as an aircraft carrier.

One of the issues we have to resolve before we design a new city or a new economic system is whether we should put limits on the amount of wealth a person can acquire. And an even more important issue is whether we should be concerned about HOW a person acquires his wealth.

In America, there is no limit on how much money a person can make, and there is no concern for HOW he makes it. Americans become wealthy simply by figuring out how to acquire a lot of money. Our free enterprise system doesn't allow anybody to pass judgment on how a person earns his money. The end result is that the wealthiest people are not necessarily the people who contributed the most to society. There are a lot of wealthy people who made a lot of money from crime, investments, gambling, entertainment, or marrying wealthy people.
 

When we design a completely new city, we can give it any type of economic system we want. So would YOU like to put restrictions on how much wealth a person can acquire? If so, what should the difference be between the wealthiest and poorest person in this city? Or should we go to an extreme and force everybody to have the same exact level of wealth?

If we decide to allow a difference in wealth, should we let the government decide what every job should pay? Or should they merely set guidelines for businesses to follow? Should we try to eliminate the situation of two people doing the exact same job but making different amounts of money? That would require that everybody's salary be publicly available so that we can compare our incomes. Would you approve of that situation? Or should we allow every business to keep salaries a secret and decide for themselves what to pay their employees, even if their decisions are irrational or selfish and result in resentment and fights among the employees?

By letting the government determine or influence income levels, then society would be able to have control over whether actors, athletes, investors, and other people are allowed to make phenomenal amounts of money. We could even design an economic system in which an entertainer is paid an ordinary wage, just like a factory worker or a carpenter.

We could also design the economic system to prohibit all forms of royalties, commissions, bonuses, and we could prohibit people from taking percentages of home sales or financial transactions.

We could also prevent parents from passing on businesses, land, and homes to their children. Many people would condemn this as a "death tax", but eliminating all forms of inheritances is simply requiring everybody to earn their position in life rather than get a free ride.

A sailor on an aircraft carrier is not allowed to give his son his position in the military, and his children are not allowed to inherit his living area of the ship. If his children want to live on an aircraft carrier, they have to earn their position.

The reason I mention these issues is to help you realize that before we design a new city, we should discuss the virtually unlimited options we have in regards to how life in that city will be. We're not helpless babies. We can design a new society as soon as we find enough people who are interested in getting involved with these types of discussions.

We should also discuss the issue of unskilled labor before we try to design a new city. All throughout history we find people using foreigners, idiots, and mentally ill people as a source of low-cost, unskilled labor. These laborers separate from the rest of the population and create what we could describe as a "peasant class".

Before we design a new city, we should decide whether we want to have a peasant class. My recommendation is to make changes to the economy and government to reduce the need for unskilled labor to such a low level that we don't need any peasant class at all.

To help you understand these concepts and show you some of our incredible opportunities, I'll describe the residential area of a city with a very different philosophy towards life.

However, keep in mind that this is going to be an imaginary city simply to help you realize that we have tremendous options, so I'm going to simplify the situation by ignoring the issue of crime, alcoholics, and retards. Assume that everybody in the city is healthy and happy and honest. Think of this city as a big, happy family.

Don't worry that such a city is unrealistic. I simply want to show you a very different type of economic system and city. Also, this should help you to understand what I mean when I say that the more honest and responsible a group of people are, the more options they have available to them.

I'm going to describe a city that follows the philosophy that there should be only one class of people. Everybody in the city is the middle class, or the working class. There are no rich people who get special pampering by servants, or who live in giant mansions or who have private boats or jets. And there is no section of the city for poor people or foreigners who are used as cheap labor. This city will make a lot of sacrifices in order to reduce the need for unskilled labor.

Everybody in this city is provided with the same level of material wealth. The government dominates the economy, and the businessmen are treated as government employees. Nobody is wealthy or poor. The scientists, mechanics, business executives, and factory workers have the same size and quality of home, clothing, and furniture.

This may appear to be a form of Marxism, but there is a very important philosophical difference between Marxism and what I'm going to discuss.

Marxism promotes the philosophy that the material wealth be shared equally, but the people don't have to contribute equally. Marxism gives special pampering to the defective people who don't contribute much of anything. Those people want Marxism because they want access to other people's food and material items; they want handouts and pity. They're not looking for equality. They're looking for a way to grab at what other people have.

By comparison, I'm going to describe an imaginary city in which everybody is happy and healthy and responsible, and everybody contributes to society. There are no parasites or criminals.

The Navy doesn't practice Marxism, even though all of the sailors on a ship are taken care of. Everybody on the ship must work and behave properly, or they are put in jail or evicted from the ship. The military doesn't feel sorry for losers, criminals, or misfits. Also, there are no types of monarchies or inheritances allowed on the ship. Everybody has to earn their position.

The ship has what we could call "businesses", such as restaurants, laundry services, and repair facilities, but they are controlled by what we could describe as the ship's "government". Imagine a similar philosophy applied to a city on the land.

In this imaginary city, the city government owns all of the land, homes, and businesses. Everybody is provided with their basic necessities. Since nobody can own any land or buildings, nobody can be a landlord, and nobody can inherit land or buildings or businesses.

However, unlike an aircraft carrier, in which the captain has a slightly less cramped cabin than the ordinary sailors, imagine a city in which everybody's home is virtually identical. Aircraft carriers, and especially submarines, are extremely short of living space, but on land there is plenty of room for everybody.

This brings me to one of the issues I want you to think about. Many people will complain that it's not fair that we all live in the same type of home because some of us are more talented than others. However, those of us who have some special talent were simply born this way. Why should we get special pampering? Why should ordinary people be penalized?

Humans and animals do not want equality. We want special treatment. We are extremely selfish and arrogant. We do not want to be ordinary people who are treated the same as other people. We want to be special. We want to be worshiped and admired and loved and pampered. And so we are always looking for ways to feel special. And we are always looking for excuses to justify receiving special treatment.

I think society would be more pleasant if we ignored this animal craving to be special. If a person is born with unusual intelligence, or unusual strength, or unusual coordination, then he should use his qualities to contribute to society.

One of the purposes of a school should be to help children determine their strengths and weaknesses and find a job that they can perform properly at so that they can contribute something of value to society. Nobody should be encouraged to boast that he has some special talent, and therefore he deserves special pampering.

This also brings up the issue of whether people who get special pampering and high incomes are having happier lives than if they had been treated as ordinary people. And consider the people who become extremely wealthy or famous. Does their incredible level of wealth allow them to enjoy life more than the rest of us? I don't think so. In fact, when people become extremely wealthy, they become outcasts of society, and they are pursued constantly by parasites and con artists.

Tiger Woods is a good example. Has his incredible wealth and fame done anything to make his life happier than yours or mine?

It's our crude emotions, not our intellect, that makes us think that wealth and fame will make us happy. An ordinary factory worker today has more material wealth than the kings and queens of the Middle Ages, so every factory worker today should be much happier than any of those medieval kings and queens. However, many of our factory workers are miserable.

Happiness has nothing to do with material items. If you're not happy with life, you're not going to become happy simply by increasing the size of your house or your collection of material items. However, the people who have an unusually large house or an unusually large pile of items, or who are famous, can stimulate themselves into thinking that they're special.

I think we should stop encouraging these animal cravings to feel special and to stockpile material items. So imagine a city in which everybody is treated equally. Although the homes are visually different in order to make the city more attractive, the homes are identical in regards to their size, quality, and features. The assembly line workers live in the same type of home as their managers. Everybody in the city has the same access to the same furniture and clothing. The people are treated virtually the same, regardless of what their job is. Tiger Woods would live in the same type of home as the factory workers who make his golf clubs.

This brings me to another issue I want you to think about. With our current economic systems, one of the primary criteria in selecting a job is the income level it provides. The end result is that many people take jobs they don't really care much for, or which are worthless to society, or even destructive, simply because it provides a high income.

But when all jobs provide the same level of material wealth, you would have to select a job according to some other criteria, such as whether you enjoy the job.

The current philosophy followed all over the world is that we must provide a higher income level for certain jobs in order to entice people into doing them. Supposedly, if all jobs provided the exact same income level, not many people would be interested in becoming business executives, government officials, doctors, dentists, carpenters, or engineers. Supposedly most people would try to get a job that doesn't require much training, thinking, or effort.

This brings up an important issue that we should make a decision about before we try to design a new city or a new economic system. Specifically, should we continue to treat people as if they are circus animals? Should we continue to use money to manipulate people?

My attitude is that we should stop this policy and start promoting the more advanced humans who contribute to society because they want to.

If we were to change society so that all jobs provide the same level of material wealth, many of the people who are currently struggling to become doctors, carpenters, business executives, government officials, or engineers would switch to a much simpler job, such as delivering pizza. But so what? Why should we care? Why should we use money to encourage these people to do something that they don't want to do?

I think a better society is one in which the people who become dentists are doing so because they want to help us with our teeth, not because they want our money. And it would be better if the people who became engineers were truly interested in helping society rather than just looking for a high salary. This is especially true for people in leadership positions. They should be leaders because they have the talent and desire to provide leadership, not because they're trying to become wealthy or famous.

I think that one of the problems of our society today is that the people who are getting into influential positions are doing so because they are attracted to the money and the status, not because they want to help society. Take a look at business executives. They don't show any interest in society, and they don't even seem to care whether their business has any value to the human race. All they seem to care about is acquiring lots of money and feeling important. They behave like monkeys, not advanced humans.

We also have engineers who don't care what type of product they produce. Their primary concern in life is making money. And it seems as if the primary concern of most college professors is getting tenure, not doing something of value or teaching useful skills to their students.

Recently in America a lot of executives in the financial and banking companies were given enormous bonuses, even though the government had to provide those companies with money to keep them from failing.

The justification for the bonuses is that those executives are actually very talented people, and if we didn't provide them with a lot of money, they would have temper tantrums and switch to some other company that offered them a high salary.

It's entirely possible that the type of men who are currently struggling to get to the top levels or business are doing so only because they're interested in the money and the status. Therefore, if all jobs provided the same income level and status, they might prefer some other job. But my response is, so what?

It would be better for society if the people dominating businesses were doing so because they were truly interested in managing a business for the sake of making society a better place.

Some people justify the phenomenal incomes of people in the art and entertainment businesses on the grounds that they are talented artists who would have temper tantrums and deliver pizza for a living if they weren't allowed to become rich and famous.

But my response to that is also, so what? Let them have temper tantrums. Let them deliver pizza. I don't care.

I'm willing to work for an ordinary income, and there are people in the police and military who are willing to risk their lives for ordinary incomes. The idea that we must treat business executives, athletes, and artists as if they're kings and queens is ridiculous. If those people won't work for an ordinary income, then they should be considered as circus animals, or as primitive savages, or talking monkeys.

In my previous audio file I mentioned that we should stop trying to control the badly behaved people. Everybody should be allowed to be their natural self. If a person doesn't fit into society, then let him be a misfit, but don't let him reproduce. Eventually this policy will create humans who fit into this modern world, and who behave in a respectable manner because they truly want to, not because a policeman is threatening to arrest them.

This concept applies to jobs, also. When we use money or other rewards as an incentive to pressure people into taking jobs they don't want, we are breeding humans into the equivalent of a race dog that chases after a mechanical rabbit. This will eventually result in humans that won't do anything unless somebody is offering them money.

We should let everybody do what they want to do. If a person doesn't want to be a dentist, fine. And if a person doesn't want to do any work at all, then let him do nothing, but don't let him reproduce.

So, in this imaginary city that I'm describing, there is no attempt to control people. Since all the jobs provide the same level of material wealth, people would select jobs according to what they enjoy the most, and, of course, what they can do.

Of course, not everybody would be able to get the job that he prefers the most. But that is a problem even today. There's no way around this particular problem.

For the imaginary city that I'm going to describe, ignore the problem of unemployment. Assume that everybody in this city has a job. This would actually be easy to accomplish when we first build one of these cities because the only people invited would be those who have a skill that the city needs. So initially everybody in the city would have a job. The problem of unemployment would occur only as the children become adults.

To complicate the issue of unemployment, there are going to be some people who would love to work and contribute to society, but they simply don't have the talent to do any of the available jobs. This is a sad situation because these particular people may be wonderful humans. And this problem is going to become increasingly significant as robots and machines become more advanced.

One possible policy is to put the unemployable people in special neighborhoods, or special cities, and provide them with the basic necessities of life, but don't allow them to reproduce. They would be able to live a peaceful, quiet, and carefree life, but they wouldn't have access to as much of the material wealth as the rest of society. They would be taken care of, but not pampered.

Nature is no longer dominating the evolution of humans. We are now influencing our evolution by the type of society we create. For example, America follows the philosophy that we should feel sorry for the Underdog, and this is allowing a lot of people to survive and reproduce who never would have been able to do so a few thousand years ago. America is breeding hundreds of varieties of alcoholics, criminals, retards, and misfits.

In addition, America doesn't care how anybody makes money, so a lot of people are becoming wealthy as a result of criminal activities, investments, inheritances, and by marrying people with money. And with their wealth they can easily raise children and help their children survive. America's attitude will eventually create a race of parasitic and dishonest people who look for ways to live off the work of other people.

When the human race starts designing new cities and new social systems, we have to consider how our changes are going to affect the evolution of the human race.

My recommendation is to stop using rewards and punishments to control people, and start promoting the people who are naturally well behaved.

Rewards and punishments don't fix whatever problem a person has. Furthermore, the punishments usually backfire by helping the badly behaved people figure out better ways of misbehaving. For example, when the police warn us that if we commit a crime, they will be able to identify us by our fingerprints, that doesn't transform criminals into honest people. It simply makes people avoid leaving fingerprints.

Likewise, when you tell criminals that there are security cameras around a building, that doesn't turn them into honest people. It simply makes them look for security cameras. They're still the same criminals. And their children will still continue to inherit the same lousy qualities.

Putting people in jail doesn't fix them, either. Jail might help some people realize that they have to control their crude emotions, but they're still the same people with the same low-quality genetic blueprint.

And some people might react to jail by planning their crimes more carefully. Therefore, these people will commit fewer crimes after they get out of jail, which creates the illusion that jail is reducing crime, but it's not improving the people. Rather, it's making the criminals more cautious and careful.

Our current method to stop crime is not stopping crime at all, and it's not transforming criminals into honest people. When we warn people that they will be identified by fingerprints, or security cameras, all we're doing is educating criminals on our crime prevention techniques, which helps them to become better criminals. In other words, our policy to stop crime is teaching people how to become more successful as criminals. We are inadvertently helping criminals to improve their techniques rather than transforming them into honest people.

It would be easier for us to solve crimes if the police had never provided details on their techniques. Imagine how easy it would be to catch criminals if nobody knew about fingerprints.

This concept also applies to businesses who are looking for employees. If you tell the job applicants what you're looking for, or what you're impressed by, or what bothers you, then some people will do whatever you want. It's better not to provide details on what you're looking for. You should observe the job applicants to see who naturally has the qualities you need.

When we try to control people, we set ourselves up to be taken advantage of because we let them know what we want and we expose our techniques. The person that we're trying to control can use that information to fool us into thinking that they are what we want them to be, and by knowing the techniques we use, they will know how to work around them.

Our current economic system tries to control us by using money as a reward and by threatening us with punishments for misbehaving. However, as I just mentioned, there's no concern for how we make money, and the end result is that a lot of people are doing things that are worthless or destructive simply to make money. And punishing business executives for misbehaving isn't giving us high quality leadership. The executives are simply learning how to abuse us in a more legal manner.

Offering extreme levels of money as a reward for businessmen is not giving us good leadership. Actually, I think it is attracting the neurotic and crude men. The behavior of our businessmen reminds me of the dogs in the neighborhood. They don't seem to have any interest in society or providing guidance to us. They want to feel important. They want to be the dominant male. And some business executives seem to be suffering from some serious mental disorders. Bill Gates of Microsoft is an example.

The first documents I posted on the Internet were my complaints about the Linux operating system, and in one of my pages I complained about Microsoft and Bill Gates. I posted those documents before the 9/11 attack occurred. And at that time I didn't know much about Zionism, and it didn't occur to me that Bill Gates might be part of the Jewish crime network. At that time my impression of Bill Gates was that he was simply another psychotic, unhappy man who was hoping that money would make him feel better.

There are many reasons why I think Bill Gates has a serious mental disorder. For example, he rocks back and forth while trying to sit still; he supposedly loses his temper sometimes and sprays people with enormous amounts of saliva as he yells at them; and he is supposedly so introverted that his wife often needs to introduce him to people. And he built a house for himself that is 66,000 ft.²; and then he purchased some of his neighbors' homes and then demolished them in order to get rid of his neighbors.

In response to my accusation that Bill Gates is mentally ill, I received an angry e-mail from a man named Frank who described himself as "autistic", and he told me that Bill Gates is not retarded but instead is showing autistic characteristics.

However, rather than change my mind about Bill Gates, Frank inadvertently helped me understand the mystery of why Bill Gates wants such a giant house. I'll post Frank's message so that you can see it for yourself.

Frank told me that if he was a billionaire, he would build a giant house for himself, also. And he said that the reason he would do this is because he doesn't get along with other people, and he would like to build a house that is so large that it has everything he wants inside of it. That way he never has to go outside and be with other people. His house would be his entire world.

After receiving that e-mail message from Frank, my conclusion is that Bill Gates wants a gigantic house, and wants to destroy his neighbor's homes, because he can't socialize like a normal human. And this would explain why his wife has to introduce him to other people. She is like a nurse to a mental patient. He wants to hide from us, and so she has to help him meet other people.

Business executives like him are not interested in society. Rather, they're trying to avoid contact with other humans. They want to hide from us, not create a society in which we all work together and enjoy one another.

Some people describe Bill Gates as introverted or shy, and they imply that it's an adorable quality, but as I mentioned in my previous audio file in regards to Professor Steven Jones, I think that only young children should have this fear of other people.

Adults who are shy may be similar to the adults who like to wear diapers and suck on bottles. There are so many of these adults that there are businesses that cater to them. These adults are described as having a "diaper fetish", but I think it would be more accurate to describe them as having a serious mental disorder, and we should try to figure out what causes it. If it's the result of chemicals that interfere with the development of children, then we would be able to reduce or eliminate the problem by cleaning up the environment.

The business executives, economists, professors of economics, bankers, and other people who dominate our economy are not leaders. They never provide us with intelligent opinions about the economy, or about life. They are NOT people that we can learn from.

And they have no interest in society, so we're fools to expect them to bring improvements to the world. Some of them are criminals in the Jewish crime network, and some are neurotic freaks who are struggling to avoid contact with other humans, and some executives behave like aggressive dogs that waste their entire lives fighting to be the top male in the hierarchy.

That expression about the scum rising to the top seems to be true with human societies. The mentally healthy people are happy to work an ordinary job, but the neurotic and unhappy people are struggling like maniacs to become rich, famous, and influential. We end up with freaks in leadership positions rather than leaders. And we shouldn't try to control these freaks with rewards or punishments. They need to be replaced with higher quality humans.

We have to change our attitudes towards people. We have to look at the world as a garden for humans, and [see that] some of us are flowers, and some of us are weeds. A gardener doesn't use rewards or punishments to control the plants in a garden. He lets every plant be the way it naturally is. If a particular plant doesn't fit in with other plants, he will transplant it to some other area of the garden where it will coexist in harmony, or he kills it. He doesn't try to transform the plant into something that it isn't.

Likewise, we should stop trying to control businessmen with rewards and punishments. We should look for men who are truly interested in working with society and improving life for everybody.

The police and military need to change their attitude on what their job is. They should be like gardeners who consider the Earth to be a paradise, and whose job is to keep the planet clean of weeds and diseases. Their job should be to protect and care for the healthy people and get rid of the destructive and parasitic people. They shouldn't feel sorry for the human weeds, and they shouldn't try to transform a weed into a flower.

When a gardener finds a bunch of weeds that are struggling with each other for dominance, he doesn't separate them so that they each have their own plot of land. Instead, he gets rid of all of them.

However, there have been many times when the police have encountered teenage gangs fighting with each other, but instead of picking up all of the gang members and removing all of them from society, the police stop the fight, and sometimes give them advice to go to school and get a job. The police try to transform weeds into flowers.

The police also try to help drug addicts and alcoholics, and they try to talk people out of committing suicide. If a gardener were to take care of a garden in the same manner that our police are taking care of society, then the weeds, fungus, and diseases would eventually dominate and destroy the garden.

And consider the situation in which an ordinary person kills a weed in a public park. We don't want ordinary people to pass judgment on which plants in the park should be removed, but if a person removes what is obviously a weed, nobody is going to complain.

However, we follow the opposite attitude with criminals. Some of the most extreme cases are in Britain, such as the man who got in trouble for shooting a burglar who broke into his house. We don't want to encourage people to kill whoever they regard as criminals, but if a person were to kill somebody who is obviously destructive to society, why should he be accused of murder?

Some people are already confused about my attitude towards euthanasia, retarded people, homosexuals, and criminals, and I suppose this is going to make it worse, so let me explain a few more details.

Alex Jones and other people are trying to frighten us into thinking that there's a mysterious New World Order that wants to kill everybody who has a defect. However the concept of restricting reproduction, or exiling people who are destructive to society, is a completely different concept.

Nobody is promoting the idea that the police start killing people who are defective. That type of policy doesn't even make sense because every living creature has defects. Every creature is just a random collection of chromosomes.

The people who claim that there is a mysterious group of elitists who want to kill defects are simply trying to create fear. They don't want us to remain calm and have intelligent discussions about our problems. They're trying to manipulate us.

We already have restrictions on who is allowed to adopt children, and who can drive a car, and we have restrictions on who can purchase a gun, and who can fly a commercial airplane, but we don't yet have any restrictions on who can have children.

Restricting reproduction is simply a way to reduce the number of defective children who are born each year. And removing destructive people from society and sending them to their own city is simply an alternative to jail.

Parents who have serious genetic disorders shouldn't be having children. One of these families was shown on the television show called Extreme Makeover Home Edition. The father had a serious genetic disorder, but they had children anyway, and two of his three children inherited his terrible genetic disorder, and their lives were miserable as a result. Actually, their children ended up even worse than the father. They are very sickly children who need a lot special treatment and medical care.

Parents who deliberately bring defective children into this world should be described as unbelievably selfish and abusive. They are creating children who will never truly enjoy life, and who are a burden on society. And every year this problem gets worse because every year there are more defective parents having more defective children.

There are frequently reports on television and in magazines that show us retarded children who are having happy lives, and who have lots of friends, and these children are used as proof that even the most defective children can be happy.

However, children are like animals. And the younger a child is, the more like an animal he is. You can cut off the legs and arms of a dog, but it won't care. It will continue to be happy, and other dogs will continue to play with it.

Likewise, you can cut the legs and arms off a human baby, and you can blind the baby, but the baby won't care. The baby will continue to be happy, and it will play with other babies.

The people who are bringing defective children into this world are doing so because they want to entertain themselves. They're not thinking of what's best for the child, and they don't care about society. Instead, they expect the rest of us to feel sorry for them and their retarded children.

However, society can provide assistance to retarded children only when the number of retarded children is below a certain level.

The people who claim to care about defective children are simply using those children as toys. The defective children are extremely dependent upon other people, and that makes them similar to a puppy or a baby human that never grows up. Therefore, adults with strong cravings to take care of babies will enjoy taking care of retarded children, but they're not doing it for the sake of the children. They're doing it to satisfy their own cravings. They're behaving like the people who toss bubble gum to the elephants at the zoo. Specifically, they're using some some helpless creature to entertain themselves.

We need leaders who can stand up to these disgusting people who use children as objects of entertainment. Children should be regarded as the next generation of humans. Parents should raise children, not play with them as if they are toys.
 

So, let's move on to the issue of how to reduce the need for unskilled labor in a completely new city.

In some cases we can reduce the need for unskilled labor simply by designing an economic system that society has control over. For example, as I mentioned in my social technology documents, we don't need to produce hundreds of varieties of laundry detergent, or hundreds of different styles of cell phones, or hundreds of variations of coffee makers.

I recently switched to Windows 7, and I discovered that the scanner I bought some years ago is no longer supported. So what am I supposed to do with it? Throw it in the trash and buy a new one? My printer isn't supported either, but fortunately it has a network connection, so I can send files to it using an Internet browser. It's a bit awkward, but at least I can use it.

We don't need businesses producing thousands of insignificant variations of the same product. The purpose for setting up an economic system in which businesses compete with each other is to inspire the different groups of people to improve their existing products and develop new technology.

As I described in my articles, our current economic system causes businesses to compete for consumers. We need to develop an economic system that causes businesses to compete to bring improvements to society. And we have to put the government in a supervisory role so that we can pass judgment on whether a business should be allowed to manufacture a particular product, or whether it's an unnecessary variation of an existing product.
 

Another way to reduce the need for unskilled labor is to provide everybody with the primary food items for free. So, in the imaginary city that I'm going to describe, the food markets keep their shelves and refrigerators stocked with food, and everybody has access to the food free of charge. The restaurants also provide meals for free.

The only foods that couldn't be freely distributed are those that are in short supply, such as abalone and some seasonal fruits. The city would have to develop a system for dividing up the rare foods, but that's not a difficult issue to deal with, so I won't even bother discussing it.

Instead, I want to point out that by providing the primary food items for free, life in the city is much more pleasant for everybody, and more efficient. The food markets don't have to waste any time or resources on the pricing of food, or on cash registers, or on bank deposits. And restaurants don't have to worry about purchasing food, and their menus don't need prices, and they don't have to waste any time collecting money from their customers.

None of the farmers, markets, or restaurants need accountants, security cameras, locks on their doors, vaults to hold cash, or security guards. The employees of food markets would only stock the shelves, remove spoiled food, and perform routine maintenance. They wouldn't have to deal with prices, sales, or money.

Of course, the city wouldn't want to get rid of all paperwork. It would be useful for the government to monitor the flow of food for such purposes as providing information on food consumption and waste to the farmers, and for evaluating the performance of restaurants and markets.

The situation with food in this imaginary city would be very similar to that of a family in which the parents keep the kitchen cabinets and refrigerator stocked with food, and the family members have access to the food 24 hours a day. The parents also provide meals at certain times of the day.

Likewise, the city provides a variety of markets that are stocked with food, and the people have access to that food 24 hours a day. And the city would support a variety of restaurants to offer meals at certain times of the day.

When people in this city are hungry, they simply get some food from a market, or if the restaurants are open, from a restaurant.

These restaurants would be similar to [what] I described in my social technology articles. Specifically, each chef would decide for himself what type of meals he wanted to offer, and which hours and days he wanted to work, and what type of service he would provide. Since he doesn't collect money from his customers, the government would let him remain in business as long as he was attracting enough customers to make his restaurant worth the resources it was using.

Incidentally, the issue of restaurants brings up the issue of what type of service the restaurants should offer. For example, I've been in some restaurants where the waiter will offer to grind pepper onto our food. I would not describe that as a service, or as pampering customers. I think it's annoying. I think it's treating people like babies.

Some restaurants offer to grind Parmesan cheese, and if they do that because the cheese is expensive and rare, then they are merely dividing a limited supply of cheese between a lot of customers, and that makes sense. But if they're doing it to pamper the customers, then I would describe it as ridiculous.

This brings up the issue of pampering and happiness. Most people believe that the key to happiness is to become wealthy and hire lots of servants to do the work that we normally do ourselves, but I think a lot of the pampering that wealthy people are getting is actually annoying.

Furthermore, the more pampering we want, the more servants we need. By reducing the amount of pampering we receive, we can reduce the need for a peasant class.

Consider an extreme example. Imagine if all restaurants provided every customer with a servant who sits with him throughout the meal, and cuts up his food, and puts pieces into his mouth. Would a customer of that restaurant have a happier life than the people who had to feed themselves? I don't think so. Furthermore, providing that level of pampering would require a lot of people in the peasant class.

We all have a different idea on what pampering is. What some people consider to be pampering is what other people consider to be irritating.

Likewise, we all have a different idea on what a "delicacy" is. I mentioned earlier that when a city provides food for free, there are certain items that cannot be distributed freely because they're in very short supply, such as lobster, caviar, truffles, and abalone. They need to be divided up in some manner.

The interesting aspect of this is that these items are often referred to as "delicacies". However, just as pampering is different to different people, a delicacy is different to different people.

I grew up in what I assume is just a typical American family with a typical American level of income. I don't ever remember my parents giving us anything expensive for dinner, such as lobster or truffles or caviar. However, I saw movies and television shows in which wealthy people would boast about caviar and champagne and lobster dinners. I was under the impression that when I get older - if I make enough money - then I would be able to eat those wonderful foods, also.

When I was a teenager, I finally had a chance to try lobster, and I was shocked to discover that I don't like it. And I didn't like champagne, either, and I dislike caviar even more.

It's possible that the reason I don't care much for seafood is because I didn't get much as a child. If I had grown up in a Japanese family in which seafood was a regular part of our diet, I might have a much stronger desire for lobster and caviar.

Children adapt to their environment to a certain extent. They pick up clothing styles, hair styles, and language from adults around them. And we also developed a taste for certain foods. For example, I grew up in a family that ate butter rather than olive oil. Years ago, after hearing about Italians using olive oil instead of butter, I decided to try it. Initially I didn't like it, but after a few weeks I began to enjoy it. It took me some time to get accustomed to it.

It's possible that I could get accustomed to seafood, and champagne, but I'm not sure. I think humans evolved with a preference for eating animals and plants from the land rather than the sea.

To understand my reasoning, consider that almost all of the animals and plants on the earth are edible by humans. There's only a few things that we cannot digest, such as cellulose, and there are only a few foods that are poisonous, such as certain mushrooms. If we wanted to, we could eat cockroaches, spiders, and fleas. But we don't want to eat those creatures. We don't think they look like food, and if we were to put some cockroaches or spiders in our mouth, I don't think we would enjoy the way they feel, and we may not like the flavor, either, or the texture.

Every animal is attracted to certain types of foods. Some birds love to eat spiders, and crabs and lobsters love to eat rotten fish, and earthworms love to eat dirt. Every animal is also disgusted by the taste, smell, or texture of certain types of foods. Even pigs will turn away certain foods.

If humans were truly like pieces of clay that mold to the environment, then children would develop an attraction to whatever food that we gave them. For example, if we were to raise some children on live grasshoppers and spiders, then they should grow up to enjoy the taste, texture, and feel of live grasshoppers and spiders.

However, I think humans have a natural preference to certain types of foods. Therefore, even if we force children to eat live grasshoppers and spiders, I think they would become adults who have a tendency to switch to bananas, chickens, apples, pork, and certain other foods.

You might respond that the Chinese and other people in Asia are eating scorpions and caterpillars and other strange foods, but they seem to eat those foods only after doing something to cover their flavor and texture. For example, they may dip them in a batter and fry them, or they mask the flavor with powerful spices.

Bananas are supposed to be one of the most popular foods among humans. We love the smell, texture, and flavor of a raw banana. I don't think this is because parents have been giving bananas to their children. I think it's because humans evolved with a true attraction to bananas.

Monkeys also love bananas, but there are a lot of animals that don't like bananas, such as dogs and cats. I doubt if it's a coincidence that both humans and monkeys love bananas. Also, notice that we love to eat them raw. We don't have to dip a banana into a batter and fry it, and we don't have to add spices to the banana. I think our strong attraction to bananas is evidence that humans evolved in an area of the world where bananas were a primary food.

I also love the taste of certain meats, such as beef, chicken, pork, and turkey, and if the meat is fresh and not overcooked, I don't have to put anything on it. I don't have to add pepper or sauces.

However, this is not true of the foods that we call delicacies. Does anybody eat lobster all by itself? It seems that everybody who eats lobster will drench every piece in large amounts of butter, lemon juice, spices, or some type of sauce. I think this is evidence that humans really don't like the flavor of lobster.

The same is true of snails. If humans enjoyed the flavor and texture of snails, then we would enjoy eating them all by themselves. Cooking them in butter and garlic would be an option, not a necessity. And if we truly enjoyed the taste of caviar, then the rich people would eat caviar in the same manner as we eat chicken or pork or beef. Specifically, rich people would often have bowls of caviar as their primary food for dinner. But how many people want caviar to be their primary food? And how many people would want lobster as often as they eat chicken or pork or beef?

Most of the foods that we regard as delicacies are foods that we don't like to eat in their natural state. And we don't like to eat them on a routine basis. I think this is evidence that we really don't like those delicacies. So, why do we consider them to be "delicacies"? Why do rich people boast about eating caviar and lobster?

The reason we regard them as delicacies is because they're rare. Therefore, a person who can afford those items can imagine that he's special. As I've mentioned many times, humans don't like being ordinary. We want to be special. We don't want to eat chicken if ordinary people are eating chicken. We want the foods that only a few people can afford.

Champagne is another example. How is champagne any better than beer, or apple cider, or orange juice, or water? Champagne is expensive, so the people who can afford to buy it can stimulate themselves into thinking that they're special people.

Humans do not want equality. We are selfish, arrogant creatures. And so we are always looking for ways to feel special. Therefore, if a food is in short supply, the people who have access to that food will titillate themselves by imagining that they're special people.

And so what happens is that when people become wealthy, they often eat foods that humans don't really care much for simply because they want to imagine that they're special people. And the ordinary people eat foods that we actually enjoy. So, who's life is really happier? The poor person who eats chicken? Or the rich person who eats lobster?

Restaurants that cater to wealthy people will try to satisfy our cravings to feel special by offering meals that nobody else has. For example, a restaurant in New York City called Serendipity offers an ice cream dessert that is extremely expensive because it has some gold foil on it and a small bowl of caviar. They claim to sell about one of these every month.
dailyolive.com/got_1000_why_no.html

A restaurant in Arizona sells a chocolate dessert that has some gold foil on it, and they also sell a package of 24 sheets of the gold foil so that we can decorate our own desserts.
shopflagstaffhouse 24_Karat_Gold_Foil_P276C60

I wouldn't describe these deserts as a "luxury" or a "delicacy". I would say that these restaurant are simply exploiting our crude cravings to feel special.

The restaurants that offer to grind pepper onto our food are also trying to satisfy our craving to feel special, but on a less ridiculous level. However, I don't think a society should encourage people to do things to feel special. And so, in this imaginary city that I'm describing, the government discourages restaurants from offering ridiculous levels of pampering.

I would say a restaurant is pampering its customers when it provides food that's healthy and tastes good.

I'm about to reach the 120 minute mark [note: I should have said 80 minutes, or one hour and 20 minutes], so I'll finish this in part 5.