Our ancestors have made decisions that have put our race into a very dangerous path, one that leads to violence, destruction, and ultimate extinction for our race.
We do not have to go down this path.
There are other paths we can take into the future.
This book is about these other paths.
On December 8, 1980, Mark David Chapman shot John Lennon to death in front of his apartment in New York City. He had traveled more than 5,000 miles to do the job; he went to elaborate lengths, getting special hollow-point bullets that would explode inside of Lennon’s brain to make sure his mission of killing Lennon succeeded.
Chapman believed he was dong a service for society by eliminating Lennon. Lennon was spreading very dangerous ideas and had to be stopped.
What were these ideas?
Lennon believed that humans were capable of much more than we had achieved so far. He believed we could have a world where the people didn’t divide the land surface of the planet into ‘nations’ and then build nuclear bombs and intercontinental ballistic missiles to force people to respect the claims of these nations. He believed a better world was possible and asked people to seriously think about finding ways to make it a reality.
Lennon tried to get people to use their imaginations: if they could imagine a better way to organize existence, figure out the way this better existence worked, figure out the specific obstacles are in the way, and figure out how to overcome these obstacles, we could actually create such a world.
Lennon’s messages went against everything that Chapman had been raised to believe.
Chapman had been raised a Christian, a religion that taught its followers that an invisible superbeing that lived in the sky—a being Chapman had been raised to call ‘God’—had created the world and made it exactly the way God wanted it to be. The holy books of this religion go to great lengths to point out that God had created certain specific structures and mandated that we use them. God had created the idea of nations, God had created the first nations, and God had granted them their land. These nations fought wars and the holy books specifically state that God accepted that the victors of these organized mass murder events were the new owners of the land they had conquered in these wars. (You will find these discussions in Chapter Ten of the book of Genesis, available from this link. It gives the exact words claimed to have come from the claimed superbeing that led to the existence of the societal structures we call ‘nations’ and explains that God accepted the results of wars as binding. This principle, often called ‘the principle of manifest destiny,’ has been and continues to be very important in getting people to fight over land.)
Chapman also had very powerful secular (non-religious) beliefs that Lennon’s ideas threatened. Chapman had been raised in a society that took the idea of nations and the rights of nations very, very seriously. The various nations of the world all claimed rights that other nations didn’t always accept. The leaders of the nations knew that the other nations would trample their rights unless they enforced them with threats of violence and destruction. These threats would not work if the other nations didn’t truly believe they would be carried out: the nations had to make sure they had enough weapons to use whatever level of force was required to make other nations accept their claims. They needed massive militaries and giant industrial complexes to make weapons the militaries needed.
The leaders realized they would need a very large number of compliant people to man the industrial facilities and wield the weapons when necessary. They controlled the curriculums of the schools and were in a position to make sure that the children went through a political education that would make them believe nations were real things and had real rights (even if they didn’t believe in invisible spirits in the sky having created these things.)
The people who had positions of power and authority in these systems had developed training programs to get children to think in ways that would allow them to participate in the system when they grew up. Children were taught wondrous songs that associated nations with everything wonderful, good, pure, and noble. They were taught songs that glorified the most horrible activities humans could engage in, like using implements of mayhem and murder (bombs and rockets, in the American anthem) and mutilation of innocents (cutting the throats of children, in the French anthem). These songs associated the most horrific words imaginable with the most wondrous and uplifting melodies ever devised. When children first learned these songs, they didn’t know the meaning of the words. (I was well advanced in school and had sung the song thousands of times before I realized that the United States anthem was not about a Mexican named ‘Jose’ who was trying to see things through a ‘donzerly light.’)
By the time they learned the meaning of the words, the association had been formed: killing, blowing off body parts with bombs, shooting rockets that would hit and kill innocents, and cutting throats of children, were indelibly tied to the wonderful melodies; they couldn’t hear even a few bars of the melodies without thinking of bombs, rockets, and children with their throats slit.
Long before Chapman had been old enough to understand the meaning of making such promises, he had been required to pledge his allegiance to the icons of the nation, to the idea behind the nation (the ‘republic’), and the specific nation where that claimed him as a citizen. He didn’t undertake this promise lightly: he was required to stand in the position of the greatest possible respect while he made it. He noticed that we were all equal when it came to our obligations to the nation: the parents, the teachers, the principle and other administrators of the school, and even the President of the nation had to show the same respect and make the same pledge.
Mark David Chapman had made this pledge so often and with such deep reverence that the words were indelibly etched into his brain. The ceremony had had a great impact on him and he had come to accept the ideas behind this pledge without any mental reservation. The nation was worthy of infinite respect and even worship. Sometimes, when he was in bed at night waiting for sleep to come, the words would run through his mind and he would be in awe of the responsibility he had undertaken. His job was to protect this fantastic structure that God had created.
The education system that trained him to believe such things was not designed to be unbiased. The schools that taught him of the wonders of nations did not start with an objective analysis of the different ways humans could organize their existence and analysis that showed that dividing the world into ‘nations’ and using the activity we call ‘war’ to advance the interests of the ‘nations’ best met the needs of the human race. The training focused on creating emotional triggers that could be accessed by the leaders of the nation when they needed people to disregard their own morals and belief systems that made sense to make them useful in war. The training was designed to create associations that people would continue to hold even if their own eyes told them these associations didn’t exist.
As part of his training, Chapman had studied a phony history that turned slave traders and genocidal mass murderers into heroes with almost superhuman qualities. These people were put up on pedestals and claimed to be worthy of worship. Any who helped the nation they lived in were portrayed as ‘good’ in these histories; any who questioned the rights of the nation or the idea behind nations were evil. The one-sided imagery of the history lessons, combined with the mental impact of the songs glorifying nations and wars, the ceremonies, the monuments, statues, parades, icons, pledges and promises, had all had a great impact on Chapman’s young mind.
He had been convinced.
He believed that nations were wonderful things, created by a loving God, and were the only possible source of everything wonderful from liberty and justice for all to the purple mountain majesties and amber waves of grain. Without nations to bring these wonderful things, and without the wars that were needed to keep evil in check, life would not be worth living.
Cognitive Dissonance: Why Lennon HAD TO Die
At the time, Lennon’s words were everywhere. His music was the most frequently played music on the radio worldwide and people could not go into public places without hearing it. If you actually pay attention to what Lennon’s words say, you can’t help but be affected by them.
They provoke thought.
Lennon’s words made Chapman think. If he thought too much about the words, he started to wonder about the truth of some of the things he had been raised to believe.
Is it really possible to imagine a world with no countries?
Is it really possible to imagine the human race as one ‘brotherhood of man,’ not a collection of different nations, where people’s rights depend on the location of their mothers relative to imaginary lines when they gave birth to them? If the things Lennon’s words made Chapman think about were right, there might not really be any real difference between the people on different ‘sides’ in a war. Perhaps the wars of the past were not always won by the good guys (as the history books, written under the direction of the winners, claimed) and perhaps the wiping out of people who thought differently didn’t really make the world a better place. Perhaps the world could be a much better place if not for the patriots enforcing the rights of nations using mass murder, destruction, and threats to blow up the world with nuclear bombs if their demands are not met. Perhaps the people who taught him that nations were wonderful things, created by a kind and loving God, really were not trying to enlighten him about things that would make the world a better place. Perhaps they were just trying to turn him into a tool that the people who had positions of power could use to maintain their power.
Perhaps they were making a fool of him.
Chapman didn’t want to think about these things.
The more he thought about Lennon’s words, the more he thought that Lennon might have a point. The more he thought this, the more uncomfortable he became with the version of reality he had been raised to accept.
Psychologists call this mental problem ‘cognitive dissonance.’ People believe one thing in their minds and experience things that cause them to realize that the things they believe are not right. This causes severe mental discomfort. Many psychologists believe cognitive dissonance is one of the of the most important causes of suicide. Many people see no real resolution: their entire belief structure, built since they were very young, tells them one thing and reality tells them something else. To accept reality, they have to basically throw out everything they believe, starting with the foundational elements. Other people around them have these same beliefs. Their friends and family have these beliefs. The authorities have these beliefs. To think any other way, they have to be willing to stand by themselves and reject the things the people around them tell them.
Chapman felt this emotional distress. He wanted to find some way to end the confusion. A part of his mind told him there was a right way to think: A great many people, including many people he respected, had told him that nations were wonderful things, created by a loving God, and that they were the ultimate source of anything good and wonderful that could exist, including everything from freedom, justice, and liberty to the majesty of the mountains and beauty of the sun shining over the sea. Only a tiny group of people thought like Lennon and said things that indicated this might not be true. If he could just get rid of the people spreading the dangerous messages, he might be able to stop the thoughts that caused the dissonance. Chapman had made a list of the people who were spreading dangerous messages. (The list included David Bowie, Johnny Carson, Marlon Brando, Walter Cronkite, Elizabeth Taylor, George C. Scott and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis.) He had told a lot of people that he wanted to kill everyone on this list. But Lennon was the most dangerous. He had to go first.
Lennon had been through the same kind of education as Chapman: it was mandatory in the nation where Lennon was raised, just as it was in the nation where Chapman was raised. But not everyone reacts to the methods used to train children the same way. The training methods are designed to appeal to emotion and faith; people are told that these are the things that all decent people believe and, if they are decent people, they will believe them themselves and never subject them to questions or logical analysis.
But some people can’t help themselves.
They see things that don’t make sense and wonder why. Lennon had seen things that caused him to believe that the society around him—the one built on the idea of the entities we call ‘nations’ using the activity we call ‘war’ to gain rights to additional land at the expense of other nations—didn’t meet the needs of the human race.
He said this about this type of society:
Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we’re being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I’m liable to be put away as insane for expressing that.
Chapman wasn’t the only one bothered by Lennon’s ideas. Entire communities had banned Lennon’s words. Some groups had organized drives to collect Lennon’s records and books and throw them into fires.
Chapman considered himself a representative of these people. They were only trying to protect themselves from influences that might prevent them from thinking the way they had been raised to think and truly believed was the right way to think. They needed someone to help them keep their minds pure. This was Chapman’s mission.
Chapman didn’t hide his reasons for killing Lennon. He was proud of having sacrificed himself (he knew he would spend the rest of his life in prison for killing Lennon) to rid the world of this menace. At his trial, his attorney told the jury that people who are proud of having committed murder are not thinking right. He asked the jury to find his client ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’ and not punish him for his act.
The jury didn’t accept this argument.
Chapman’s modes of thought weren’t aberrant: he was thinking the way he had been raised and trained to think. If all of the people who have killed to advance the interests of their nations or their religions are insane, the great majority of the historical figures we were raised to respect in school were insane.
The killing itself wasn’t what was wrong: if he had simply understood that there are rules behind the impulses he felt, that wanting to kill people for his nation or his deity was perfectly acceptable and normal, he could have killed people and been hailed as a hero by simply enlisting in the military and killing the people identified by his government for elimination. The problem was that he used his own judgment in areas where we are not supposed to use judgment. He had control over who he killed and he made the wrong choice. Chapman hadn’t followed the rules and had to be punished.
Lennon and Chapman represent two polar opposites in their thinking.
Chapman thought of the basic realities of existence on Earth as fixed and unalterable. He thought of countries as real things and the ultimate source of everything good. He thought they had been created by God and put into their current state by the most intelligent and benevolent people who ever lived. He loved his nation and believed he had an obligation to do whatever was necessary to protect it from people who threatened it. He thought that the ideas Lennon presented were threats to the things he had pledged to protect and felt obligated to eliminate the treat.
He wasn’t born with these beliefs. We are all born innocent and ignorant of hate, fear, and patriotism. He had been through an intensive training program to make him think in ways that would allow the people who were in positions of power and authority to keep the system that benefited them in place. These people had used very powerful tools to make him think this way. He was susceptible. He trusted too much. He became a part of the insane system around him.
People had tried to get Lennon to think the same way, but they had failed. Lennon had thought things through on his own. He had decided that the deity that was claimed to have created nations, organized them, given them their rights, and set them fighting each other over land, was made up by the people who benefited from the nation-based system to trick people with susceptible minds to think and act the way Chapman thought and acted. He believed that humans were capable of organizing their existence many different ways, and the and system then in place was just one of the options. He wanted people to take the very first step to understand that other societies could exist: He wanted them to let their minds go place where they wouldn’t normally go and imagine a better world.
Who Is This Book For?
This book is about the capabilities of the human race. I claim, and will continue to claim throughout this book, that the human race is capable of far, far more than we have achieved. We are capable of organizing the realities of our existence many different ways.
Some of the options are horribly violent and destructive. They push people to divide themselves into groups that ‘conquer’ land to gain control of the wealth it contains and produces; they then use that wealth in an organized way to make weapons to advance the interests of one group against other groups. This is one way for humans to organize our existence, but not the only way. Some of the other options are less destructive and less violent; they still have problems but these problems aren’t as severe as the problems of the societies we inherited.
Some possible societies work in entirely different ways: They work in ways that encourage people to work together in peaceful, organized, logical ways. These other societies work in ways that provide incentives to keep the planet as healthy and productive as possible so it will provide more value for all of the people. In some of these societies, the inherent reward systems work in ways that align the interests of the individuals within society with the interests of the human race as a whole. We will see that societies in this category naturally move forward toward a better world as a result of natural and normal human behaviors.
Humans are capable of organizing the realities of our existence many different ways. In this book, each different ‘organization of human existence’ will be called a different ‘society.’ If a particular method of organization doesn’t violate any natural, biological, or psychological law, it is a possible ‘method of organizing existence’ or a different ‘possible society.’ In this book, we will see that all possible societies can be arranged in logical ways that allow us to understand how each of them works and how each compares to each other. We will see that it societies are most definitely possible that have the following characteristics: they are inherently peaceful, sustainable, prosperous, and will move the human race toward a better future with each year that passes.
Why haven’t we already created such societies?
The story that started this book was designed to help you see why: Humans are still, in many ways, at an early age in our evolution. We still have some animalistic tendency to be afraid of things that frighten us. Earlier animals in the evolutionary chain didn’t have the mental tools needed to think through these things, figure out how they worked, and figure out how to overcome them. Their brains were programmed to think that there is nothing they can do about certain things. They come from some power or source they can’t control and they can only accept.
You might think of this as similar to the human impulse to believe that things that frighten us come from some spirit being that we can’t see, but that controls our destiny. We have the ability to think things through. But if enough people tell us it is wrong to use our own minds, figure out how things work, and figure out how to solve the problems, a primitive part of our brain will want to believe them. We can simply choose not to think about things that go against the things we were raised to accept. We can think like Chapman.
Humans have a kind of herd instinct. If the people around us are heading certain way, a part of us wants to join them. The people who run the educational systems of the nations of the world can take advantage of this. They can start herding us in ways that make us think that all of the people around us are patriotic, they love their countries and the system built on countries, and, if each of us wants to fit in, we have to think the same way. They can prey on our primitiveness.
This training doesn’t totally work on everyone all the time. Some people are like Lennon: they don’t accept at all. Others who accept part of the time—when they are with crowds that accepts, for example, or when they face someone who proposes that they may have been wrong to support the system—but have nagging internal doubts. As long as they can keep their minds split, using the mental tool Orwell called ‘doublethink,’ and avoid thinking in the wrong way in certain situations, the system can continue to function even if a majority of the people of the world are in this category.
If you think like and identify with Chapman, this book is not for you. You have been told there is a right way to think. If you have accepted that this is the right way, if you believe that thinking any other way of thinking is wrong, if you believe that you will be guilty of some horrible sin or crime to allow your mind to think as Lennon thought, if you believe that the destiny and that the future of the human race was already cast in stone before anyone now alive on Earth was even born, and our decisions and desires are meaningless, this book will only make you angry. You should find other reading material.
However: if you think like Lennon, Socrates, Alexander the Great (who almost succeeded in making a different society, see ‘Forensic History’ for more information), or many others who truly believed humans could do better and tried to help people see this—this book will help you understand the true capabilities of the human race. We have extremely capable minds: We are capable of imagining other ways to organize ourselves. Once we imagine the other systems, we can analyze them go figure out how they would operate if they existed. We can then do real experiments to verify the results of our mental experiments and make sure things really do work as we envision them in our minds.
We can put together pictures of many different societies in our minds. Once we see that there are ways for humans to organize ourselves that don’t have the problems that currently threaten our existence, we can educate the people around us and let them know that these other societies are possible. We can use tools like the internet to create forums and even set up elections where the people of the world can determine if the majority of the members of the human race want something else. If we—the members of the human race and inhabitants of the planet Earth—want a better system, we can have it.
The Structure of this Book
The next chapter begins the analysis of the different societies that humans can form.
It starts with a science fiction story: You the reader, myself the author, and a large group of other people are on a cruise ship when a weapons test by some government of the world goes awry. It causes a distortion in the space-time continuum that sends us, our ship, and several million square miles of ocean water back into the past. We go back before the first humans existed. The survivors of this voyage back in time are the world’s first humans.
We will find ourselves in an ideal situation with regard to the societies we can form. We have all of the advantages of the 21st century, but none of the structures that appear to lock us in to the societies that we have in the 21st century and prevent us from building anything else. There are no nations in place when we arrive in the past so we don’t have to adhere to the divisions of land that were a part of the future; we don’t have to grant people rights based on the place of their birth relative to imaginary lines if we don’t want to do this. There are no corporations with vested rights to rape the planet, so we don’t have to submit to rules of law made by people in the past and accept the destruction these rules cause: we are the world’s first humans and we can make our own rules. There are no national debts taken out by past generations that we must pay on, forcing us to organize our societies in ways that would allow us to keep making payments on these obligations. There are no constitutions that prohibit us from enacting any rules we want. (For example, we will end up on a part of the world that will one day be a part of the United States, but we won’t be leave ourselves at risk through a prohibition of laws regulating killing devices.) When we arrive there is no body of law that accepts that corporations are people with the same rights as people and, unless we create such laws, they won’t exist and corporations will have the specific rights that we want them to have. We can make our own rules.
We have a great many options.
Here is one option: We could recreate societies that were in place in the 21st century. Our ship had people on it from all of the nations of the Earth. We could take a map of the world from our library and declare that the division of the land into nations in that book is still valid and we will respect it. We could give nations the same rights they had in the 21st century and recreate all of the legal systems, legal structures, stresses, and problems of the world we left behind.
We could do this.
But we don’t have to do this.
We are in total control of all important variables of our existence.
We can form any kind of society we want.
Our group in the past has many meetings where we discuss important issues. Many people claim to have special rights to parts of the planet. Some claim these rights come because they are citizens of nations that owned this land when we left on the cruise. They believe their nations still own the land and, as the only living citizens of the nations this land belonged to, they are the government (they can elect themselves) and this puts them into a position to give the land to anyone they want, including themselves. Others claim they own by rights of inheritance, because of racial ties to the land, or because they went through the procedures accepted in the societies we left behind as necessary to claim the land. These people want to be owners, they want all the wealth the land contains, produces, and is capable of producing, they want the right to keep others off of ‘their’ land, they want the right to sell the land to others or give it to people who support them in their quest to be owners. Some of these people feel very strongly about their desire to own the land and indicate that they will make trouble for the rest of us if we don’t accept their claims.
The majority of the members of our group aren’t in this category. We don’t have any reasonable foundation to claim a part of the planet belongs to us. We believe that we really have other priorities and this is not the right time to deal with this issue: we have just gone back millions of years in time and have to worry about surviving. This is no time to waste fighting over which country, group, or person owns each part of the world.
After some discussion, the majority agrees to a moratorium on this issue that will give us time to solve our other problems. The moratorium doesn’t mean no country, group, or person can ever own any part of the world with the respect and permission of the human race, only that, for the time the moratorium is in effect, this issue will be on the group agenda and no one is allowed to claim ownership of any part of the planet, either as a group by any name, including a ‘nation,’ or as an individual; no one may buy or sell any part of the planet or any fixed real estate. The moratorium has a provision dealing with people who incite violence or conflict in order to claim ownership of any part of the world: this will be considered to be a crime in our group and be punished as a criminal. The people who want us to accept that nations own parts of the world oppose this measure and argue fiercely against it. The people who are relatives of people who used to own large parts of the planet back in the future also oppose it.
But the majority of the members of the human race (remember, our group is the entire human race) believe the moratorium is a good idea and vote for it. There is a very specific reason that the minority that wants nations which can own parts of the planet won’t be able to have them: Our group has come up with a logical way to make decisions. We have decided that the majority will rule. There are certain decisions that will have to be made this way from the first. For example, everyone has to eat and we must decide who gets any stored food and who will get any food produced by the land around us. We make this decision in group meetings with majority rule. Let’s say that certain people decide that they will violate the rule that we have made against trying to form nations and they get together to try to build armies so they can ‘declare independence’ from the rest of the human race and make their own nations. We have decided these are criminal acts and we may decide that criminals should not be treated the same as people who obey the law when it comes to food distribution. We ‘distribute’ food in several ways, including the holding of many group meals, feasts, and celebrations, and distribution of food to individuals. We can decide that we don’t want criminals at our feasts and celebrations and we don’t want them to share in the food distributions. These people will get very hungry and will realize right away that their hunger can go away if they simply conform to the will of the majority. We don’t want to have to deal with people fighting over who owns the planet we live on, at least right now. If they want to eat, they have to go along with the group.
When we passed the moratorium, we weren’t trying to create a specific society. We were only creating some peace so we could work together to try to solve pressing problems. We set up some temporary rules that will end after a fixed period of time (20 years in this case). But by deciding that we would not accept that anyone or group could own nature or any part of the planet, even temporarily, we have created a foundation for a society.
We will see that such societies have existed in the past.
Prior to the conquest by nations, millions of people lived in the Americas and we have a great deal of information that tells us that these people organized their existence around the premise that nature, mountains, rivers, lakes, islands, continents, and parts of continents are not really things that mortal people who will live only a short time can own. We depend on them entirely for our existence and to claim we own them would be just as silly as the idea of a group of fleas claiming to own a part of the dog the fleas live on. Many of the people who lived in the Americas before conquest had very well organized societies that had many millions of members.
The Inca, for example, the Maya, the Mississippians, and many other groups fall into this category. (See sidebar for more information.) We actually know a great deal about the way these people organized their existence. We certainly know that their organizational structures were NOT built around the idea of dividing the world into parcels called ‘nations’ and assigning ownership of each parcel to one or another group of people.
For the first 400 years after the discovery of these lands, people who ran societies built on the idea of nations have been intent on expanding the territory they controlled. They wanted land inhabited by people who lived other ways and had the military tools necessary to take it.
Many people had written objective books and provided objective information about the way the people on these lands lived. Military planners know that books and information sources that portray groups they are trying to wipe out in favorable ways are very bad for morale: it is far more difficult to get soldiers to exterminate people or remove them from their homes to places where they will die if the soldiers have objective information that portrays the people they are going to be exterminating in a favorable way. During the period of the conquest, any books or information sources that depicted the people to be destroyed as anything other than sub-human savages were banned and most people had no idea these information sources even existed.
People who own books and records that have been banned don’t always destroy them. Now that we have the internet, a forum that is essentially impossible to censor, people are scanning libraries that include a great many books that were formerly banned that explain how these people really lived. (You can find the complete text of many of these books in the menu section to the right marked ‘books about Natural Law Societies.’)
We know certain things for sure because we see these things repeated over and over: the people who lived in the Americas, including the people in the very advanced cultures, did not accept that humans could own parts of planets. They believed that forests, rivers, lakes, mountains, islands, continents, and parts of continents, were here before they arrived and will be here long after they are gone. They are the source of the things that kept them alive and were not the same as simple possessions that can be owned. They didn’t believe individuals could own parts of the planet and they couldn’t be owned by groups, regardless of what the groups called themselves. Calling your group a ‘nation’ doesn’t make the land ownable: it is not ownable by its very nature.
It is possible for people to organize the realities of their existence around premises other than the rights of nations. We know this is possible because people have organized the realities of their existence other ways. Our group in the remote past will have created a temporary set of conditions where we will experience the same realities. We will see that societies that are built on the premise that nature and the land around us are the source of the things we need operate entirely differently than societies built on the premise that the planet we live on is just one more thing that people can own and exploit for the benefit of their group.
The people in societies that don’t accept land can belong to humans tend to have a much different relationship with the land than people in societies built on the idea that parts of planets can belong to nations. If no one owns the land, no one owns the food and other wealth it produces over time. The people must have meetings and discussions about what to do with the wealth the land produces. We know from large amounts of historical records that people who had these types of societies tended to make these decisions in group meetings with majority rule. The majority of the people decided who benefited from the wealth the land produces. We know from records that these people generally used part of the wealth to create a kind of reward system to ‘pay’ people who did things that benefited the group. For example, people who planted, cared for the crops, and then harvested them, would be rewarded in some way for their effort, to give them incentives to continue to do these things. People who performed services for the people, like maintaining the water supply, helping with public housing, and finding treatments and cures for diseases, were also rewarded in some way. But the land produced vast amounts of wealth, far more than the people could justify giving to individuals. We know from records that the people used the surplus in ways that caused everyone to get something.
Because everyone got a share of the wealth the land produced, everyone had a real vested interest in the health of the land: If the land remains healthy, there will be more to share, and everyone will get more. This system works in ways that naturally rewards environmental responsibility. We know from many sources that the people who lived in America before the countries took over took extremely good care of the land. (In fact, they took such good care of it that many of the people who wanted to claim there were no people on the land justified this belief by claiming that there couldn’t have been any people because there was no destruction. We know now that the areas claimed to have been empty had very high populations.)
Our group in the remote past has not intentionally formed a society. The moratorium was only an attempt to keep people from fighting over which group or country owns each part of the world, temporarily, until we could deal with more pressing issues. But we have built the foundation for a society and this foundation has existed before. We will see that societies built on this foundation have both advantages and disadvantages relative to societies built on the idea that nations can own parts of planets.
Our moratorium will last for 20 years. During this time, we will have a chance to experience the realities of existence from two entirely different perspectives. In other words, we will have a chance to live in two entirely different types of societies. One society is built on the premise that nature and land are the source of all good things and can never be owned by humans. The other is based on the premise that nations own everything inside their borders and that they can gain ownership of more by war.
Once we have some experience with the alternate society, we will start to realize that there are certain elements that we may call ‘building blocks of society.’ These blocks can be put together various different ways. We will realize that it is possible to build something that you might think of as a ‘hybrid’ society. This hybrid society will work in ways that can combine the advantages of the simple system that we built in the past and the societies that we had in the future. If we take our time, work through the options, and figure everything out, we can have the advantages of both systems without having the disadvantages of either system. Most of this book is about the idea of putting the best of the best together.
Intellect Based Societies
It is possible to build societies on beliefs. People may start with the belief that nature, mountains, rivers, lakes, continents, and parts of continents are simple things that can belong to groups of people who go through certain ceremonies and rituals. They may also start with the belief that humans are residents of this world with no more rights to the world than any of its other animal residents, and build around these beliefs. Societies built on different belief systems operate in different ways.
Beliefs are basically guesses about things that we can’t know for sure or prove with objective evidence. (Mental constructs built on objective evidence are called ‘facts’ not ‘beliefs.’) It is clearly possible for people to guess about things they don’t understand and organize the realities of their existence around these guesses.
It is also possible leave guesses about unknowables out of the analysis entirely. It is possible for a group of people in the right position to conduct an objective analysis of the needs of the human race. They can work through the structures that can help us meet these needs and figure out the different way these structures can be put together to make different societies. Once people understand ‘all of the different societies humans are capable of forming,’ given the different capabilities and limitations of humans, they can figure out which options can meet the needs of the human race going forward and which options cannot meet these needs.
We will see that societies built on the belief that humans can own parts of planets have very powerful forces pushing toward violence and destruction. These societies can’t meet the needs of the human race. Societies built on the belief that humans have no right to make any permanent alteration of the world (that we have the same rights as all of the other animal residents) have serious limits that make them impractical: if we can’t alter the world in any way that may last, we can’t build buildings, roads, or facilities that will allow us to turn the super-abundant raw materials our world is made of into things that can make our lives better. This stands to reason: if you start by making guesses about things you can’t understand or verify with objective evidence, and require everything you do to conform to these guesses, you will not be able to do many things that could make your life much better.
Our group in the remote past is in a position to analyze the variables and decide what we want for the future. We can leave societies built on guesses about unknowables behind and organize the basic realities of our existence around the needs of the human race. The human race needs a clean, healthy, productive world to live on.
We know that people in the past knew how to live in harmony with nature.
During the time of the moratorium, we will have the same forces pushing us to keep the land healthy and productive as these people had. We also know that we can benefit if we have facilities that turn the superabundant raw materials the Earth contains into finished products that can benefit us. (See sidebar for more information.)
Our group in the remote past will have experience with two entirely different types of societies. We will know that there are different structures we can put together different ways to meet our needs. We will have all of the skills, talent, and technology at the 21st century at our disposal but none of the limits of 21st century societies.
We will be starting with a blank slate.
I want to show you that something is possible: It is possible for humans to organize their existence in ways that can lead to a world that works in ways that allow the human race to live in harmony with the planet we live on, in harmony with nature, in harmony with each other, and still have the things we need to make our lives better. I think this point is easiest to make if we start with an example where the structures that work to make this difficult in our 21st century world don’t exist.
After our group in the remote past gets settled, we will work to build the best society that we can. We will want to put together the best of every system we understand. We will see that we actually have many structures we can work with and we can put them together many different ways. We will explore the options, consider the way they work, find structures that improve life for us, and put them into place.
When we finish with this process, we will have a society that conforms to standards that Socrates showed us that human societies must have to be workable, practical, and meet the needs of the human race over time. (You may remember from history that Socrates was put to death for refusing to censor himself about these ideas. Socrates presented his ideas in a very intelligent way that made people doubt that fighting for their country was a good idea. This harmed morale and, during times of war—meaning all the time—any ideas the harm the morale of the fighters and suppliers of war can’t be tolerated. Socrates had to be executed to shut him up. See Forensic History for more information. Although many patriots worked very hard to silence Socrates, his ideas are still out there and it is possible to build on them.)
I will need a name for the society that our group will form in the past, the one that conforms to the basic standards Socrates showed societies must meet in order to meet the needs of the human race. I will call it a Socratic. The Socratic is a very workable and practical society, on that works in very simple ways to align the interests of the individuals within society with the interests of the human race. The version explained in this book advances on Socrates ideas to take advantage of the 2,400 years of new information in many areas and new technology that wasn’t available 2,400 years ago, but it adheres to very simple and logical standards that don’t really require any understanding of complex modern financial tools (which we will see can add a great deal to the model) and technologies to understand.
Once you understand the basic principles of the Socratic, you will see that the fatalism and depressing arguments that people present in an attempt to claim that humans can never have anything else is actually derived from ignorance. The truth is that humans are extremely capable creatures. We can organize the realities of our existence many different ways. Some of the options meet standards that can be shown to meet the needs of the human race indefinitely into the future. In fact, many people have understood that these standards exist and can be met (Socrates clearly understood them, as did Aristotle, the teacher of Alexander the Great, Alexander himself, and many others; you can find details of this in Forensic History.) The idea that we can’t ever live any other way has been pounded into our heads since we were very young children: people have to believe this or they would never accept the realities of the world around them and would never do the horrible things that the societies we were born into need people to do in order to continue to function. But it is not true. Humans are not helpless minions of an invisible spirit being or beings that requires us to kill and destroy for his/their entertainment. We are in control of our own destiny, we can choose our own path into the future, and we have a great many different paths available to us.
Back to the Future
Here in the 21st century, of course, we don’t have all of the advantages that the people in this example had. We didn’t choose the circumstances of our own birth. We didn’t choose which planet to be born onto (I think we were actually lucky there: Earth is pretty nice, almost certainly much nicer that many of the worlds where intelligent life has evolved in this vast universe). We didn’t choose what point in that planet’s development to be born and happened to have been born at a time when people are not fully confident in the analysis made by their frontal lobes, the parts of our brains responsible for complex logic and reason. We were born at a time when people were still highly susceptible to various tools that allow others to control our feelings and make us believe that countries are real things (in other words, that they exist outside of our imagination and would continue to exist even if people stopped believing in them), that they are wonderful things that bring us everything that makes life worth living (including the freedom, justice, and liberty that the writers of the patriotic songs, poems, and stories claim that everyone has). We didn’t choose when to be born, but I claim that we were actually born at a wonderful time. We have tools that never existed before. People can check facts; they can analyze things scientifically, and can see for themselves that the basic religious and patriotic messages that keep us living at the verge of our own destruction don’t make sense.
We are in a position to break way from the past. If we can accept that we are capable of more, we can begin work on a better world right away. We can accept there are many paths into the future, we can figure out what path we want to be on, and we can figure out how to get onto that path. Our destiny is not in the hands of an invisible superbeing or beings that live(s) in the sky and it wasn’t already decided before we were born.
Our destiny is entirely in our hands.
How To Read This Book
I have tried to make the points of this book as straightforward as possible. If you are able to put them together in your mind, you will find that they all fit together in very logical ways, all make sense, and imply that the human race really is capable of far, far more than we have yet achieved. You will see that we can have a much better world and you will understand exactly what must be done to make it reality.
Although the points are not technically challenging, they are going to be difficult for many people to understand because they don’t fit with the things we were raised to accept.
Here is the problem: We all need to create a picture of the way existence works in our minds. We start when we are very young and build a mental framework. When we learn new things, our minds wants to organize them in some way and make them fit into this picture. We have been raised and educated to accept a certain version of the realities of human societies: In this version of reality, nations are a fixed reality of existence. The realities of existence for the people of the nations depend on the decisions made by the people who ran the nations in the past. These people wrote certain documents and created certain rules that we were raised to believe are fixed realities of existence: they are above us all, were created by people far more intelligent and benevolent than anyone now alive (generally, these people were also claimed to be guided by whatever spirit being or beings the nation teaches children to worship) and the institutions they created are not to be questioned. We can work within these institutions, but it is not acceptable to even allow ourselves to imagine a world that works any other way.
This framework was built in our minds starting when we were very young. This is how the world works. We are not supposed to think of it working any other way. We are supposed to think of this as the framework of existence and we are supposed to be able to prevent our minds from thinking in any way that may go against this framework. Chapman killed Lennon mainly because Lennon’s words were making him think in ways his mind told him were wrong. They made him doubt the framework for existence that the people around him had raised him to accept.
Logic and reason tell us that humans are definitely capable of more. We can organize the organize the realities of existence in many different ways, including some that work to advance the interests of the human race and move us toward a better future with each day that passes. Such systems are possible: we can imagine them, we can work out their details in our minds, and we can figure out the specific differences between these societies and the societies that were in place when we were born. But we can’t make them fit into the foundational framework we were raised to accept. If you try to make something that logic tells you is possible fit with something you have been raised to believe is impossible, you will experience the same psychological problem Chapman experienced: Cognitive dissonance. The various parts of your mind will fight each other. This can cause real mental anguish. The easy way to end this anguish is to simply stop thinking about a better world. Simply accept that the things we were raised to believe about the intentions of whatever invisible spirit being or beings are supposedly in charge of existence and the rights of the entities we call ‘nations’ are correct. If you can only make your minds stop thinking anything else, the confusion will go away.
That is the problem:
We will see that there is a way out of the mess that the past generations of the human race have gotten us into. We can move forward. I believe that we now have tools that never really existed before to make this possible. We have the internet, which allows us all to have access to any information we want. We have knowledge bases of historical events, many of which governments have tried to hide from the people of the world ever since they happened: we can figure out how the world really came to work as it does. (See Forensic History for more information.) We can all see that a large percentage of the information handed out by the world’s religious leaders, governments, and the schools that governments create and run is clearly not intended to help move the entire human race toward a better future and is incapable of doing so. In fact, now that we are in a position to subject the words of religious and government leaders to objective analysis, these people are starting to look downright childish with their perspectives. People who once would have fallen into line behind them and killed or even given their own lives to protect them are laughing at them.
In my view, there is really only one thing that is preventing us from moving to a better world. This is the difficulty of fitting logic and reason with a worldview based on the idea that different people (different ‘races,’ different sexes, different nationalities, different ‘classes,’ for example) based on factors that humans supposedly can’t alter. I believe that it can all be understood and, furthermore, anyone who tries to do so can understand it. But to do so requires mental effort.
I want to ask you for a favor:
Don’t try to speed-read this book. Wait until you have some time. Get to a comfortable place; get something to drink, and relax. Read slowly and think of the ideas as waves lapping at a shore. Enjoy each wave. From time to time, relax and reflect on the waves you have seen and the way they shape the sand of the shore around them.
I promise you that, if you do this, you will be able to see things that will amaze you. You will see that the human race really is capable of much more than we have achieved. You will see that the path we are now on—the path that leads to our extinction—is not only not the only path we can take into the future, it is actually a rather primitive and foolish option, one that would never have been chosen if the people who lived in the past really understood the capabilities of our race. You will see that we are now in a position that humans have never held before and we have tools that we can use to shape the destiny of the human race.
One final note: I believe that the human race is here for a purpose. Perhaps we may not fully understand this purpose quite yet, but I believe it exists. I am convinced that this purpose is NOT to destroy ourselves in some competition over which of several ‘nations’ each part of the planet belongs to. It is something higher. Furthermore, I believe that there are a great many planets in this vast universe that are Earth-like in that they are capable of supporting the kinds of life that live here. I believe that evolution is a scientific process and, as such, will operate anywhere beings with the same basic qualities as Earth life exist. Eventually, this will lead to beings with the defining characteristic of humans, the ability to think, plan, and use logic and reason to solve problems. This means there are almost certainly many races of beings in the universe who have faced the same circumstances we now face: make one choice, and go extinct; make a different choice and move toward enlightenment about the meaning of existence. I believe that many—and probably the great majority—of these races of intelligent beings did not make it. The odds are against us.
But I am arrogant and proud. The human race has done some wonderful things and we are capable of much more. Perhaps only one in a million races of intelligent beings that try to solve these problems will actually solve them; perhaps the number is even higher and we only have one in a trillion shot at making it. But I am arrogant and proud. If only one in a trillion makes it, I want it to be us.
A note about cost:
I am asking for $1 for access to this book. This $1 payment will help cover the cost of advertising. If you want to do more, you can tell people about this book. The more people I can get by word of mouth, the less I have to spend on advertising.