Get into the habit of being
critical of leaders
This section complains about the people we refer to as "conservatives",
but I don't bother to criticize the "liberals" as much. The reason I concentrate
on conservatives is not because they are worse than liberals. Rather, I
think that most of the "people of importance", that is, the people who
are going to have the greatest influence over the future of the world,
are conservatives, not liberals.
A lot of conservatives are in positions of importance, but I don't think
they are providing us with good leadership. Furthermore, the conservatives
are likely to put up a lot of resistance to my theory that a government
can do a better job of managing a society than free enterprise because
they are promoting the exact opposite theory. Some of the conservatives
want free enterprise to handle even more tasks, such as first-class mail,
jails, electricity production, and the building of highways.
In this section I want to help you get into the habit of looking critically
at people in influential positions, especially the people who call themselves
"conservatives". The conservatives promote the frightening theory that
the government is inherently inefficient, corrupt, incompetent, but demand
evidence for all theories. Don't let anybody frighten or intimidate you.
Take a critical look at their ideas, their personalities, and their history.
Discuss the issues, and ask questions when you are confused about something.
Demand sensible explanations.
Control your tendency to
follow leaders like an animal
Both animals and humans have a strong emotional desire to
follow our male leaders. We are naturally submissive to men
in leadership positions. We trust them, and treat them better
than other men. This is acceptable behavior for an animal and a primitive
human, but it is not acceptable in
this modern world. The men in leadership positions today need to be treated
as "employees" who are doing a job, and we need to set high
standards for them. We have to stop worshiping them. They are not
kings. We have to change our attitude towards leadership. We have to set
high standards for men in leadership positions and regularly review their
job performance.
Animals do not have to pass judgment on their leader; they can safely
give blind obedience to him. This policy works for animals because the
males are constantly competing for leadership, and this ensures that their
leaders are always mentally and physically healthy.
However, the competition for leadership in the human world is no longer
fair or sensible. Crime networks, monarchies, and inheritances are allowing
incompetent and corrupt people to get into positions of leadership, for
example. Also, many people have created jobs that give them lifetime positions.
For example, there is no competition for American Supreme Court justices
or the Pope. The people who get into those positions can remain there until
they die of old age. There is no concern about whether any of them even
have a functional brain.
On Easter Sunday in 2005, the Pope had deteriorated so much
from old-age that he could not go out into the public, so he tried to talk
from his window, but he could
not speak. After struggling for a while, he gave up. Imagine
if businesses, schools, or the military allowed such decrepit men to retain
their position as teacher, pilot, or supervisor. It would be impossible
for a male animal to remain in a leadership position if its brain wasn't
functioning.
Animals have no desire to set standards for their leaders, and likewise,
we humans do not want to set standards for our government officials, business
leaders, school officials, or religious leaders. For centuries people have
been following Kings and Queens who are insane, and some of the monarchs
were
children when they were promoted
to the position of King or Queen. Most of the human population behaves
like a stupid animal that mindlessly follows whoever happens to
be in a leadership position regardless of whether he provides good leadership.
Most people are so much like animals that they don't even care if their
leaders are capable of speaking, or whether their leaders are involved
with crime networks.
This problem seems to be worse for women because, in addition to not
being able to think as well as men, they have a sexual attraction to the
dominant males. Therefore, they are not only willing to follow incompetent
and corrupt male leaders, they are willing to offer themselves sexually
to those men. Neither female animals nor female humans show any concern
about how the dominant males achieve their positions. They don't care whether
he inherited it, got it from winning a lottery ticket, or got it from a
crime.
Get into the habit of looking critically at yourself, and try to notice
how much like an animal you are. Try to think more often rather than mindlessly
follow your stupid emotions. Our emotions are becoming increasingly
inappropriate for this modern world. Don't let them ruin your life or the
potential future that we have for ourselves. We can bring tremendous improvements
to the world, if we can control the
animal qualities within our mind.
Compare personalities
in the military and businesses
During the 1980s I had to visit some military bases, and I
was impressed by how neat, clean, and orderly they were. Some of them were
like little cities, with houses and landscaping.
I don't think you should dismiss the neatness and orderliness of the
military base as meaningless. The men in the military are under no obligation
to make their bases neat and orderly. They are under no obligation to plant
trees, flowers, or grass. Most of us have no idea - or care! - what they
do with their base. They have chosen to make their bases neat and
orderly. They have chosen to plant trees, grass, and flowers. They also
choose to wear clean clothing. Nobody makes them do any of this. None of
us would know or care if their bases were sloppy.
I'm not going to deny that the military has problems. Actually, the
military suffers from the same problems that every other organization has,
such as alcoholism, drug abuse, crime, and people being promoted into positions
that they are not well suited to. There are also some people in the military
who were pushed into joining by their parents in the hope that the military
would cure them of their irresponsibility or bad behavior. However, not
even that problem is unique to the military. For example, some parents
have forced their children to get a job at a local business in the hope
that the job would help them to mature properly. Those particular kids
are not working because they want to work. There are also people
in the military who are simply looking for money and have no concern for
their job, but that problem is not unique to the military, either. Lots
of people take jobs only for the money.
Each of us ends up on a different path in life because we have subtle
differences in our mind and body. Some of us are strongly attracted to
certain types of sports, and some have strong attractions to music, and
some are more interested in getting drunk. Why are some people attracted
to the military, others attracted to sales, others attracted to corporate
leadership, and others attracted to daycare centers?
I think there is a subtle difference in the personalities of
the people who dominate the military and those who dominate business activity.
From my casual observations, I would say that the difference between them
is that the military is a team whereas the business executives want
to be kings. The men in the military
are gears in that machine, and they work together for the benefit of
all. By comparison, the men who rise to the top in business today are
savages who work for themselves.
Business leaders do not work with us, or help us improve ourselves,
or inspire their competitors to do a better job. They regard everybody
as their potential enemy, and they try to eliminate their competitors.
They look for ways to cheat the government, not work with the government.
They look for ways to circumvent laws, not improve our laws. They look
for ways to manipulate customers, not improve society.
Furthermore, business executives do not put any pressure on society
to make the cities neat, clean, or orderly. They don't care how ugly their
city is, or whether it's full of crime, homeless beggars, polluted air,
and litter. They instead concentrate on getting control of a piece of land,
putting a giant mansion on that land, and collecting lots of material items.
Some of the people in the military joined because they truly want to
join a team and help society. Those men help the others in
the military become better; they don't sabotage one another. They work
together; they don't fight for dominance. By comparison, people with selfish,
predatory, or parasitic personalities are more likely to be attracted to
business activity, sales, or politics. They care only about themselves,
not society.
Have you ever noticed how business executives spend their money? For
example, Larry Ellison and David Geffen co-own
a boat that is so large that it cannot dock at most marinas. Ellison
and Geffen are just two of many
wealthy people who spend an enormous amount of money on impressive
gardens, houses, and boats, but all of their projects are for themselves,
not society. They are not gears in a machine that work with us for the
benefit of all. Rather, they are kings, and we are the foolish peasants
who waste our talent, resources, and labor on their extravagant projects.
|
This photo shows one of Larry Ellison's many houses. This has
an
imitation of a 16th-century Japanese Emperor's home and garden.
We should put our labor, talent, and resources into projects for
society,
not for kings or queens. |
|
 |
Some military leaders, such as Muammar Kaddafi, may want as
much material wealth as the business executives, but military officers
as a group seem to be much more concerned about society and much less interested
in being a pampered king.
A society is a reflection
of its leaders and citizens
If we were to put business executives, such as Larry Ellison
and Bill Gates, in control of society, they would continue to behave exactly
as they have been behaving all throughout their lives. Specifically, they
would spend their time building giant mansions and yachts for themselves,
and arranging for servants to pamper them. Giving Larry Ellison a government
job will not change his personality or his behavior. He will continue to
be the same person with the same desires. He will continue to regard himself
as a King and us as his peasants.
Although the military has some selfish and crude people, I think that
the military officers as a group are truly better behaved and more concerned
with society than the typical business executive. If we were to put those
particular officers in control of society, they would continue to behave
just as they have been throughout their lives. Specifically, they would
expect everybody to contribute to society, be neat and clean, and behave
properly. They would expect a nicer home than that of the factory workers,
but the difference between their homes would be small compared to what
we see with business executives.
Whether a government is impressive or disgusting depends upon the people
we put in leadership positions, and it also depends upon the citizens.
There is nothing inherently dangerous or inefficient about a government.
We have to be more critical about the people in the organization. An organization
can only be as good as the people. Citizens who do not care about crime,
or who are easily bribed, are going to allow crime to flourish. Citizens
who have cravings to be Kings and Queens are going to look for ways to
become wealthy rather than look for ways to help society. Citizens who
want to spend their life playing with their dog or praying to Jesus are
going to create a society that is full of dog products and religion.
Everybody has a different personality. It is ridiculous to follow the
philosophy that we are all the same, and that everybody is easily replaceable,
and that everybody is capable of being the president of the United States.
It is true that there are lots of people who can replace an unskilled laborer,
but we cannot easily replace people who are talented, honest, reliable,
responsible, and concerned about society. Some people are better at certain
jobs than other people, and they are not easily
replaced.
Some people believe that putting women into positions of leadership
will end wars, but America has lots of women in leadership positions in
government, business, and schools, but what good has it done us? Britain
was under the control of Margaret Thatcher for years, and England still
has a queen, and Israel had Golda Meir, all of who were women of some type,
perhaps Neanderthals, but females nonetheless. Where is the evidence that
women are reducing war or helping society in any way? There are also lots
of women in the feminist movement, but what good are those women doing
us?
We must be much more concerned about who
we allow in leadership positions, regardless of whether they are leaders
in business, television, schools, sports, or a government agency. We have
to look at their personalities and their abilities. We should
not follow the philosophy that everybody is the same, and that we can pick
a person at random and make him into a great leader with training, and
that we can fix his bad behavior with punishments.
Why don't conservatives provide
better leadership?
Conservatives boast about being educated, having jobs, starting
businesses, and taking care of themselves. However, if they are truly better
people than the liberals, then why don't they offer the most intelligent
suggestions on dealing with the world's problems? Why aren't they having
the most intelligent discussions?
The presidential candidates for America's 2012 election are a good example.
They are frequently giving speeches and getting into discussions, but I
don't think they say anything that is more intelligent than what we hear
from the ordinary people. They spend most of their time insulting President
Obama and pandering to Israel and religious fanatics. A child is
capable of doing that.
Years ago I wrote that the truth doesn't
need laws to protect it, and a variation of this concept applies to
the conservatives who boast about being better than the liberals. Specifically,
if they were truly better people, then they wouldn't have to tell us.
We would be able to see it for ourselves. It would be obvious.
If we were to separate the liberals and conservatives into two groups,
there would be some obvious visual differences between them. The conservatives,
as a group, would be better dressed, cleaner, better groomed, more polite,
and better behaved. The conservatives would also have fewer drug problems,
less crime, fewer body piercings, and a lot more guns.
I think the reason the conservatives are visually better looking than
the Liberals is because they are normal, healthy humans, whereas most of
the liberals are somewhat defective. However, when you compare the opinions
of the conservatives to the liberals, I don't see any difference in their
intelligence.
Both groups have some intelligent opinions, and both have lots of stupid,
irrational, and hypocritical opinions.
There are some subjects in which the conservatives seem to be much less
intelligent than the liberals. For example, the conservatives promote idiotic
opinions about religion and evolution. They also have a "frightened animal
perspective" of life. Specifically, they promote the nonsense that
we must live in fear of Muslims, criminals, teenage gangs, Nazis, atheists,
communists, and illegal aliens.
Why are so many conservatives so religious? Why do so many conservatives
believe that they can solve crime with punishments? Why do they
believe that international disputes can be resolved with economic sanctions
or war? Why do they become so emotionally upset over abortion and
euthanasia?
Since the conservatives are in a lot of influential positions, I think
it is important for you to take a critical look at their personalities.
By understanding why they are failing as leaders, we will be able to do
a better job of providing ourselves with more useful leaders.
Conservatives are "normal"
humans
I would describe the conservatives as "normal" humans who are
in good mental and physical health, and that they are similar genetically
to our ancestors a few thousand years ago. If we could transport the conservatives
back in time, they would fit in perfectly. By comparison, I think the liberal
philosophy attracts the people who enjoy feeling sorry for themselves,
or who are parasitic and want other people to take care of them, or who
are misfits because they are obnoxious, irresponsible, or mentally ill.
When we compare conservatives to liberals, it's obvious that the conservatives
are a higher quality group of people, but this leaves us with a paradox;
specifically, why are the conservatives just as incapable as the liberals
of providing leadership? Why don't the conservatives regularly impress
us with their intelligence?
I think the key to understanding this paradox is to realize
that the mental qualities that we see in the conservatives would have been
well
suited to life a few thousand years ago, but the world has changed
dramatically since then. Many of those qualities are now detrimental.
Humans must evolve into a more advanced creature. In this technically advanced
era, the conservatives are savages. Their mental qualities made
them well suited to a prehistoric life, but they are not capable of coping
with modern issues.
I would describe the conservative philosophy as that of a savage.
The conservative philosophy promotes the prehistoric attitude that every
man is living in a world of enemies, and that every man is on his own to
carry weapons and protect himself and his family from dangerous animals
and people. The conservatives want each of us to own our home and some
land; be the dictator of all that we own; and protect our home with weapons
and security devices. They promote the "buyer
beware" attitude. They don't want the government to remove criminals;
rather, they want us to purchase weapons and live in fear
of crime.
|
Julie Weiss,
a nurse, carries a gun because she is afraid of criminals.
|
A picnic at a public park to support the policy of
carrying guns in public.
|
|
|
Conservatives complain when the government sets rules that
we must follow in regards to the disposal of chemicals, the drilling of
oil, the harvesting of trees, the fishing of salmon, and the mining of
coal. The conservatives want individuals and businesses to have the freedom
to do as they please with no regard to the effect on society or the environment.
They also want their children to be able to inherit land, property, material
items, servants, and businesses. They have the emotional cravings of a
primitive
savage, and they are trying to re-create that prehistoric life.
Conservatives follow their
emotions,
not their intellect
The conservatives demand freedom, and they complain
about government involvement in our personal lives and in business activity,
but they reverse this policy for certain issues, such as abortion, euthanasia,
and the killing of retarded children. The conservatives want the government
to get involved in our personal lives in order to prevent us from having
abortions, or killing even the most hopelessly retarded baby.
The conservatives boast that they oppose the killing of unwanted children
because they are better people than those who support such killings, but
their policies are not based on reasoning or love. The conservatives are
simply following their crude emotions. They are reacting to the
issues, not thinking about the issues. They are behaving like a
stupid animal that follows its craving to take care of babies, not an intelligent
human who can discuss these issues and sense the stupidity and cruelty
of letting these deformed people suffer a lifetime of loneliness and pain.
Juliana Wetmore, for example, was born with serious deformities, and
she has suffered through a lot of painful surgeries, but who benefits from
this? If the doctors are learning something, then we could say she is useful
as a medical experiment, but I doubt if the doctors are learning
anything. I think she is just another example of how the majority of people
are simply unable to cope with life today and are behaving like stupid
animals who struggle to care for babies no matter how senseless the situation
is.
Juliana Wetmore
|
Juliana at birth
|
One of many treatments
|
After many treatments
|
|
|
|
|
Incidentally, the baby without a brain, which I mentioned in
another file, is now two years old.
How much longer are we going to
waste resources
on this baby?
If there were only a few hopelessly defective babies in the world, they
would be an insignificant drain on our resources, but defective people
are everywhere on the planet.
We don't see the unwanted and unloved creatures because
they are hidden in hospitals or homes, or voluntarily hiding, but
there may be millions of them suffering
miserable, lonely lives. Ignoring them does not make the problem go away,
and it doesn't make their lives any less miserable.
We treat defective people like trash, but the conservatives won't
allow them to be killed. This is not because conservatives are loving
and caring; rather, it is because they do not have the ability to control
their emotional craving for babies, and they do not have much of an interest
in learning, thinking, researching, or discussing issues. They don't want
to deal with such complex problems as genetic defects and euthanasia. They
want to spend their life like a
savage; specifically, feeding themselves,
reproducing, fighting for status, worshiping some god, and collecting material
items. They cannot cope with this modern world.
"Where do we draw the line?"
Some conservatives justify their opposition to abortion and euthanasia
with the expression, "Where do we draw the line?" They imply that if we
allow the killing of people for "sensible" cases, then after we become
accustomed to killing people, we will modify the laws and do it for less
sensible cases, and after we become accustomed to those killings, we will
modify the laws again, and eventually we will be killing healthy
people!
This is not intelligent reasoning. This is an attempt to frighten
us into thinking that the human mind is so poorly designed that we cannot
trust ourselves with the freedom to kill retarded people. However, this
idiotic attitude could be applied to every activity, including the
eating of food. For example, we could point out that providing people with
the freedom to make their own meals is resulting in some people eating
unhealthy foods, or too much food, or too little food. Therefore, the government
should get involved in our personal lives to control our food consumption.
When humans are provided with the freedom to choose their meals, some
people will indeed eat too much, or too little, but that is not my
problem or your problem. That is the
problem of the people who cannot control their food consumption. Likewise,
if we allow euthanasia for old people, some people will kill their parents
sooner than they "need to", or months after they should have, but that
is not your problem. We cannot achieve perfection in life. We simply
have to make decisions, draw a line somewhere, and then watch the results.
And if we don't like the results, then we redraw the line somewhere
else. The people who complain that "we cannot draw the line" should be
regarded as hysterical, frightened savages who are incapable of coping
with modern society.
Conservatives are not "tough on crime"
The conservatives boast that they are honest people who are "tough
on crime", but they are only tough on crimes that other people commit,
especially people of other nations or races. They are extremely lenient
on the crimes that conservatives commit, such as financial fraud, pedophilia,
price-fixing, and cheating on taxes.
Barney Frank was elected to Congress by liberals, so we
cannot blame conservatives for that. However, an orphan boy testified in
court that Frank was just one of many men in leadership positions who were
raping orphan boys, but as far as I know, not one conservative proposed
that the conservatives take their guns to Congress and arrest Barney Frank
and all of the other pedophiles. Why are the conservative so tough on black
people who smoke marijuana or use cocaine, but they don't do anything about
the pedophiles in the government or the Catholic Church?
Incidentally, the issue of Barney Frank and pedophilia should be used
as more evidence of how worthless it is to let citizens own guns. There
are millions of conservatives in America with guns, but when are they going
to use them? Crime is rampant in this nation, and corruption is everywhere
in government, schools, businesses, and churches. Larry Silverstein is
still walking around freely in New York City. When are the conservatives
going to get together and use their guns to eliminate crime? The answer
is, never.
The conservatives are not interested in standing up to criminals,
eliminating government corruption, or analyzing world events. They want
guns for defensive purposes only. They are like a frightened animal
that is hiding in the bushes. They do not even have the courage to face
Barney Frank. Kay Griggs claimed that Henry Kissinger raped some American
soldiers, but what do the conservatives do about that accusation? Nothing!
Religion is emotional, not intellectual
Animals have a strong craving to follow a older, male leader, and likewise,
conservatives have a strong craving to follow an old, male god. Although
conservatives tolerate atheism and people of other religions, they are
constantly pushing their particular religion on the rest of society. They
want the government to stay out of our lives, but they also want the government
to promote religion. For example, they want the government to put religious
references on money, such as "In God We Trust", and they push for religion
and prayer in schools. I suppose the conservatives are responsible for
the idiotic ritual in America's courts in which a person has to place his
hand on a Bible and repeat an oath of honesty. They also push religion
at weddings.
The conservatives boast that they are more religious than liberals because
they are better people, but I think their stronger attraction to religion
is mainly because they have a mind that is more like a primitive savage
than a modern human.
Animals are arrogant and selfish
Conservatives are also as arrogant as a savage. For example, when conservatives
destroy part of the environment from their abusive practices, such as harvesting
so many abalone that their fishing businesses go bankrupt, or cutting so
many trees in the forest that they have no more trees to harvest, then
they complain that the government is responsible for not controlling the
situation. Conservatives will not accept responsibility for their problems.
Conservatives never seem to admit mistakes. Every problem they suffer
from is due to somebody else or some mysterious force. For example, they
consistently elect incompetent, dishonest, and stupid government officials,
but when those government officials show signs of incompetence or corruption,
they blame the liberals or the "special interests" for blocking their brilliant
proposals. They will not tolerate the possibility that they are incompetent
voters, and that their leaders are idiots and criminals.
Look at America's 2012 Republican presidential candidates. If one of
them is elected president, and if he is ineffective as president, the conservatives
will blame the liberals for preventing him from doing his job properly.
They will not tolerate the possibility that they elected an incompetent
man.
When a person criticizes the nation, the conservatives react like primitive
savages who have been attacked by a neighboring tribe; specifically, they
become defensive, angry, and hateful. They accuse the person of being unpatriotic,
a terrorist sympathizer, or a liberal, and they often tell them to leave
the country if they don't like it. They are not interested in doing critical
analyses of themselves or society, or trying to improve themselves. They
assume that they are perfect. They do not appreciate constructive criticism.
Animals "fight",
they don't "compete"
Animals have no concern for society, and they have no desire to inspire
their competitors to become better. Animals want to chase their competitors
away; they want to dominate their competition.
Humans have that same craving to chase away and dominate competitors,
but there are subtle variations between us. Some of us can control ourselves
enough to form teams and compete in a fair manner, and some of us can go
even further and inspire our competition, and even give them advice to
make them better. At the other extreme are the people, such as Joseph Stalin,
who don't seem to have any ability to work with other people, and who will
not tolerate competition. These men surround themselves with submissive
soldiers, and they will use any diabolical tactic to eliminate competitors.
A lot of the men who rise to the top in the free enterprise system seem
to be more like animals than modern humans. These successful men don't
compete in a fair manner, and they don't want to help their competitors
to do a better job. They want to eliminate or dominate their competition.
They don't care about society. They want to become the dominant male.
When their business suffers from financial problems, they often react
by cheating or asking the government for some type of handout. If they
lose sales to a foreign company, they often react by proposing tariffs
or quotas, or begging the citizens to be patriotic and purchase
products from their own nation.
If the conservative businessmen were better people than the liberal
businessmen, then we would see the conservative businessmen behaving in
the most advanced manner, but all of the businessmen, whether conservative
or liberal, seem to behave more like animals than humans.
Conservatives are out of place today
In 50,000 BC, the conservatives would have been wonderful members of
the human race, but their qualities are becoming increasingly inappropriate.
Humans have to evolve into a creature that is less like an animal. We must
become more concerned about society and more cooperative. We have to become
gears in a machine, not savages who fight for dominance. We need to eliminate
crime, not buy guns and live in fear of criminals. Furthermore, we
have to evolve into a creature that can do what nature used to do for us;
specifically, control reproduction.
You might find it entertaining to imagine life on a Navy ship if the
officers behaved like wealthy conservative businessmen. Imagine a ship
in which the officers are are provided with an enormous, luxurious cabin,
and are pampered incessantly by the sailors, and they justify this policy
by claiming that their incredible wealth will "trickle down" to
the ordinary sailor. Imagine that when there is a crime on the ship, the
captain tells the sailors to carry guns, install security devices, and
live in fear of criminals. Imagine that when a sailor is cheated by the
ship's doctor or by the chef, he is laughed at and told "buyer
beware". Imagine that the officers insist that their children be allowed
to inherit their job and luxurious cabin, and the sailors who oppose this
policy are accused of supporting "death taxes" and of denying a parent
the right to help their children. To be truly accurate, we also have to
imagine the ship's officers forming friendships and marriages according
to the political benefit they gain; secretly conspiring with one another
to help maintain control of the ship; and sabotaging, murdering, and blackmailing
their competitors. Imagine the ship's officers believe that free enterprise
does everything better, and so they don't provide anybody on the ship with
free food, water, or other services. Instead, they tell the passengers
and crew to either purchase their meals from one of the privately owned
restaurants on the ship, or they purchase kitchen and dining room equipment
and make their own meals by purchasing food from markets on the ship. Imagine
that the ship's officers allow businesses to build stairways, elevators,
and hallways on the ship, and charge people a fee to use them. Imagine
that each passenger has to choose a business to provide his cabin with
phone service, electricity, television signals, and water, and imagine
that they get billed for their utilities. And imagine if door-to-door salesmen
and religious fanatics were allowed to travel through the ship on a regular
basis, and if telemarketing was also allowed.
The Liberals promote pity,
forgiveness, and handouts
The people who call themselves "conservatives" seem to be very
similar to one another; it's a somewhat homogenous group. I think the reason
is because they are "normal", healthy humans. By comparison, the people
who call themselves liberals have much more diversity. I think this is
partly because this category attracts a lot of the defective people.
The people who have failed to achieve their goals in life, the misfits,
the social outcasts, the people with mental disorders, and the people who
are unhappy with life are more likely to associate themselves with liberals
rather than with conservatives. Young people also seem more attracted to
the liberal philosophy, and I suspect it is because a child's attitude
is similar to the liberal philosophy that we should share material wealth,
even with people who don't contribute anything, and that we should help
one another, feel sorry for one another, and give everybody second chances
and third chances, and so on.
As with conservatives, the liberals do not want to take responsibility
for their failures, but the liberals blame their problems on rich people,
corporations, money, aristocrats, poverty, and society. Some of them blame
their parents for not raising them properly. There are some liberals who
admit that they make mistakes, but they seem to do so in order to get attention,
pity, or handouts, not to learn from the mistakes or help other people.
Some of them admit their mistakes over and over on talk radio shows, or
to whoever will listen. They love to feel sorry for themselves, beg for
pity, and look for handouts. They behave more like children than adults.
 |
| Michael Moore speaking
at the Occupy Denver protest. The liberals complain about rich bankers,
but they don't complain about the rich liberals in the media or
entertainment business. |
The "Occupy Wall Street" protests are an example of some
of the worst liberals. They are young, sloppy, ugly, and poorly groomed.
Many have no desire to get a job, and some of them are unemployable because
of their bizarre personalities. It is March 2012, and some of them have
been demonstrating since September 2011, but they still don't have
any intelligent explanation for what they are demonstrating about, and
they still have no intelligent proposals for us. There is no reason to
listen to them because they have nothing intelligent to say. All they do
is complain about rich people, demand handouts, and beg for pity, just
like a child having a tantrum.
Earlier I suggested imagining a ship in which the officers behave like
some of our more extreme conservative businessmen. Compare that to a ship
in which the officers are like Michael Moore and other extreme liberals.
The officers on this liberal ship are just as wealthy as the officers on
the conservative ship, but the liberal officers are promoting the concept
that everybody should share the wealth, even though they won't share any
of their wealth. They are just as selfish as the conservative officers,
and they also insist that their children be allowed to inherit their wealth
and jobs. There is almost no difference in the behavior of the liberal
and conservative officers, but the sailors on the liberal ship are noticeably
different from the sailors on the conservative ship. The sailors on the
liberal ship are sloppy, ugly, and poorly groomed. Many of them do not
have jobs because they either don't want to work, or their personalities
are so bizarre that nobody wants to work with them. The liberal ship also
has lots of crime, illegal aliens, homeless people, and drug problems.
There are also lots of psychologists and jails that try to cure people
of their criminal and bizarre behavior.
Would you rather live on the conservative ship, or the liberal ship?
The point I want to make is that both ships would be awful.
Neither conservatives nor liberals are going to lead the human race into
a better future.
Conservatives are frightened
of dark rooms
Animals consider anything unfamiliar as potentially
dangerous. Most people are not much better than the animals. Most adults
follow a narrow path in life, and they consider people who are on a different
path to be potentially dangerous, and they try to force them to join the
crowd. Centuries ago some people would try to force left-handed people
to become right-handed. Today everybody can accept left-handed people,
but Americans are still having trouble accepting people who eat horse meat,
dog meat, and cat meat, and most people cannot tolerate homosexuals. They
react to homosexuals with fear or anger, and they think that they can convert
them to heterosexuals with Bible lessons, beatings, psychological treatment,
or sarcastic remarks.
The intolerance of homosexuals is creating problems for both the homosexuals
and for society. For example, if people would accept homosexuals the same
way we accept left-handed people, then there would be no way for crime
networks to blackmail homosexuals. This would reduce the influence crime
networks have over society. For another example, if we accepted homosexuals,
there wouldn't be so many fraudulent marriages in which homosexuals try
to pretend that they are heterosexual.
The conservatives seem to have more trouble tolerating homosexuals than
liberals. The conservatives assume that their intolerance of homosexuals
is evidence that they are better than liberals, but their behavior towards
homosexuals is like that of an animal that is frightened by a strange
noise. The conservatives also seem to have more trouble tolerating different
races of people, and different religions. They are like animals; they are
like primitive savages who regard everybody who is different as a potential
enemy.
The intolerance of homosexuals is causing many of them to pretend that
they are heterosexual, but this is hurting their image, not helping
them. One reason is that it makes them appear to be deceptive and dishonest.
Another reason is that we don't notice the better behaved homosexuals.
Instead, we notice those who have been exposed as homosexuals as a result
of their lewd comments, rapes, or pedophilia, or we notice those who voluntarily
admit their homosexuality, but many of them do so to flaunt their homosexuality
rather than admit to it.
If we could accept homosexuals, hermaphrodites, and other types of sexual
problems in the same manner that we accept left-handed people, Siamese
twins, crooked teeth, bad eyesight, and freckles, then nobody would have
to hide their sexual problems. If we went even further and put everybody's
life history into a public database, we would notice that everybody
has a few genetic disorders and medical problems. If everybody could look
on the Internet and see everybody else's medical problems, I think that
fewer people would have the audacity to insult somebody for being homosexual.
In prehistoric times it was very important for people to be afraid of
unfamiliar people and situations, but that fear of the unknown is inappropriate
today. This modern world needs leaders who can deal with unfamiliar situations
without fear, and who can calmly discuss the issue, do some research, and
provide us with intelligent analyses that are backed up with sensible reasoning.
Homosexuals should stop hiding
The art and entertainment businesses seem to be full of homosexual
men, and many of them are popular and famous. I think the reason some of
them are so popular is because they are less aggressive and less arrogant
than a normal man. Some of them have pleasant personalities. However, by
hiding their homosexuality, they are allowing the more disgusting homosexuals
to give homosexuals a bad image.
If only one or two of the better behaved homosexuals were to publicly
admit that they were homosexual, they would be tormented by the religious
fanatics and conservatives, but if all of them would admit their
homosexuality, I think they would overwhelm the homophobes and improve
the image of homosexuals. However, perhaps they have trouble standing up
to the homophobes because they don't have the typical heterosexual man's
aggressive personality. Perhaps their more gentle, submissive personalities
are allowing the homophobes and the more psychotic, aggressive homosexuals
to dominate them.
This concept also applies to black people, women, and every other group
of people. For example, the women who appear on television and in movies
are often whining about sexism, and many of them are as sexually promiscuous
as a teenage boy. Some of their remarks are so lewd, crude, and sexual
that a man would be slapped if he were to make the same remark to a woman.
Many of the women that appear on television dress like prostitutes, use
extreme amounts of makeup, have absurd amounts of cosmetic surgery, and
wear shoes that are so impractical that they sometimes need assistance
in walking. How many of the women that you personally know are like the
women that you see on television and in movies? Does your mother, sister,
or daughter behave like those women? Television and movies are giving children
a distorted view of women.
The disgusting aspects of the entertainment business is another example
of how neither conservative nor liberals are providing us with proper leadership.
The liberals dominate the entertainment business, but the conservatives
are doing nothing about it. Some conservatives are complaining about the
entertainment business, but their solution is to replace it with idiotic
religious propaganda. Neither group is providing leadership.
Walk away from the "talking
monkeys"
Some private companies seem to be outperforming NASA in the
development of rockets, but if the American voters were allowed to select
the management of those private companies, then they would become just
as incompetent, corrupt, and disgusting as NASA. Our government is a disaster
because most people cannot handle the responsibility of voting. Don't be
fooled into thinking that governments are inherently disgusting.
The majority of people are like a ball and chain around our
legs. It doesn't matter whether they refer to themselves as conservatives,
liberals, or independents. The majority of people are primitive savages
who can't cope with this modern world.
I think the only way we can create a better society is to build some
new cities and restrict immigration to the people who truly fit into this
more advanced society. We have to turn our backs on our relatives, walk
away from them, and join with people who have better qualities. We must
leave the majority of people where they are right now.
We could be doing this right now! All we have to do is find some land
for a new city, and then design and build the new city, and then start
experimenting with it. It ain't that difficult!
|
