The suggestions made in this book are clearly designed to address various social ills which we seemingly perceive as "wrong." This Section is intended to comment on some of the phenomena which should be altered in some respect if this plan is actually implemented to some great degree.
1 . Gays And Lesbians
I
must state that moral condemnation of gays and lesbians is the height
of moral hypocrisy because these individuals are a natural product of
an environment which our society created. If society chooses to foster
same-sex relationships from birth, it should not be surprised that many
adults decide that they are "gay" or "lesbian" in their sexual
orientation. The vast majority of gay and lesbian individuals state
that they knew they were "different" from some time in late childhood.
One gay man I saw interviewed on television stated that he knew he was
gay when, as a twelve year old sixth grader, he found himself strongly
attracted to a fifth grade boy.
Whether homosexuality is an
entirely learned behavior pattern, or whether there is some genetic
and/or biological predisposition towards homosexuality, such as exists
for left-handedness (which is sometimes now seen as a result of a
difficult labor), is a subject for science to resolve if society wishes
it to be resolved. What is absolutely clear is that homosexuality is a
learned behavior pattern. If there is a genetic component, it will not
be brought out if the behavior pattern is not learned.
Clearly, homosexual behavior
is anti-survival for the race as a whole. If "everybody did it,"
humanity would die out in one generation. A small percentage of gay and
lesbian individuals can be tolerated, particularly when we are
over-populated in the first place, without impacting racial survival.
If homosexuality becomes the majority sexual orientation, without
altering any other aspect of society (such as fertility rates), it
would essentially halve our population with every generation because
only half of the population would form breeding pairs of humans. The
desire for racial survival is deeply inbred into all species, and I
believe that this desire manifests itself in mankind as a repugnance
towards the idea of homosexuality. Accordingly, when we fight against
discrimination for the gay and lesbian community, we are opposing a
force which is very deeply inbred into all of us. We just need to
recognize this, so that we are not unarmed as we enter the battle. The
major opposition to homosexuality comes from the Christian church, and
is in essence based upon scriptures which pre-date Christ by several
centuries and which are generally being misinterpreted by the
Christians. It is highly doubtful that the authors of the Old Testament
could have ever even entertained the concept of homosexuality existing
openly in society, so they just condemned it in vague terms, as they
condemned many other unhealthy practices of the time, such as eating
pork.
Modern public health concepts
understand the dangers of pork as a potential food, and we train
ourselves to deal with those dangers in properly preparing pork to be
eaten. Accordingly, it is no longer necessary to condemn the eating of
pork in order to ensure that we have a healthy society. Similarly, we
understand the dangers of homosexuality becoming a majority behavior
pattern. While we have not yet acted to protect ourselves from that
occurring, the necessary acts are embodied within the teachings I
present in this book. Thus, it is no longer necessary to condemn
homosexuality in order to protect our society from the consequences of
homosexuality becoming widespread. We only need to ensure that our
children are raised to prefer relationships with members of the
opposite sex as opposed to raising our children to prefer relationships
with members of the same sex. While the necessary changes may be vast,
I do believe most people will see that one of the side effects of
making those changes will be a reduction in the number of homosexuals
produced by our society.
Accordingly, the bottom line
on gays and lesbians is that they are humans too; let them have their
rights. And if we are upset by the large numbers of them in our
society, and we should be (for reasons of racial survival), we must
begin by blaming ourselves for raising our children to be homosexual.
It is not the fault of homosexuals for being gay or lesbian; it is our
fault for making them that way. Homosexuality is thus a symptom of a
sick society, and when seen in that fashion, it is obvious that we must
not bother ourselves with treating only the symptom; we must
aggressively treat the disease. The "disease" in this case is the way
that we raise our children; meaning (in this case) the way that we
raise our children to prefer same sex relationships. When we begin to
raise our children to prefer opposite sex relationships, homosexuality
will all but disappear.
2 . Gangs
A
"gang" is simply one form of social organism. In most cases, any such
social organism which can properly be called a "gang" is, almost by
definition, a "sick" social organism. The formation of gangs by young
people is yet another symptom of a great sickness in our society. Yet
again, we must try to treat the underlying illness, not merely the
symptom itself. We must address the reasons gangs form if we ever hope
to eliminate their existence.
Gangs form because of several
factors: 1) a failure to provide sufficient moral indoctrination
to our young; 2) a lack of alternative social organizations for
our young; 3) a breakdown in our families and neighborhoods as the
principal source of social "togetherness" for our young; 4) the
ingrained preference in our society for same-sex relationships; and
5) the tremendous strength of "peer pressure" as a motivational
factor.
The prescription of the
Christian "Right" is to increase penalties and the jailing of those who
do run afoul of the law, force moral indoctrination into our public
schools (in the form of disguised religious training of various sorts),
and to cut the amount of governmental funds for social programs
specifically designed to attack some of the more obvious factors stated
above, such as the lack of alternative social organizations for the
young. It ought to be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer
that this "prescription" is a recipe for failure because: 1) you
cannot force feed religions training down the throats of our young, no
matter how you might disguise it as part of our school's basic
curriculum; 2) cutting funding for alternative social
organizations will only exacerbate the lack of such organizations, thus
tending to make the problem worse rather than better; 3) jails and
prisons tend to exacerbate the crime problem because they are
essentially used by many of the incarcerated criminals as a means to
"cross train" for other types of crime; and 4) this "prescription"
does nothing at all to attack the root of the gang problem, which again
lies in the way our families raise our children.
The presence of a gang is
almost the definition of a "bad neighborhood" in which to live. Many
inner city neighborhoods would be fairly nice places to live if the
gangs could be removed from the streets in a wink of an eye. Because
belonging to a gang is seen by its members as virtually a license to
commit crimes, there is a very strong association between the presence
of gang members and the level of crime in any given neighborhood. Since
dealing drugs is a lucrative source of revenue, and since the gangs are
well positioned to control what goes on in the streets of the
neighborhood, there also tends to be a strong correlation between the
presence of gangs and the presence of drugs in any given neighborhood.
The combination of drugs and money leads to "turf wars" between various
rival gangs; and those "turf wars" lead, in turn, to drive-by shootings
and many other obvious social ills which we all decry.
Once a child joins a gang,
that child enters a school for antisocial behavior which virtually
eliminates the ability of parents, church, or school to train the child
otherwise. Accordingly, the first step to combating gangs is to prevent
the gangs from gaining new members. This is an extremely difficult goal
to meet in areas which are already infested with gang culture because
of the very natural peer pressure to "be just like" the older kids in
the neighborhood. But we must find an answer to this problem.
We must cause our youngest
children to despise gangs and the gang culture which pervades our
neighborhoods. Most people will not join organizations which they
despise. We have a long track record in training people to hate one
another. This experience can be put to good use by training our
youngest children to despise gangs and their members in the same way we
have trained them to despise other groups of people and their
individual members. If we cut off the source of young members in this
way, the gangs will eventually disappear from our streets as the gang
members age and die. Because it is mostly gang members in an age group
which is about fifteen years wide, from youngest to oldest, which
commits the vast majority of gang-related criminal acts, it would only
take about fifteen years of preventing new gang members from joining
before the bulk of the ill effects would disappear.
However, we must be cognizant of the fact that "nature abhors a vacuum."4
We cannot expect our youngest children to choose "nothing" in
preference to a "gang." We must provide an alternative to gang
membership. In essence, all right-thinking members of human society
must form a rival gang which is, at the instant of its formation, the
largest gang known to mankind, because it consists of the vast majority
of humanity.
Younger children quite
naturally idolize older children and adults outside of their own
families. Inside their own families is the familiarity which breeds
contempt.5
Thus, for us to form an alternative social organization to a "gang" we
must focus on something which is outside of the immediate family, but
still so localized as to be attractive to, and easy to join for, our
youngest children.
Traditional rural communities
fulfilled that mission simply by the nature of the rural community
itself. In other words, the alternative to a gang for a rural community
was the very rural community itself. This concept manifests itself in
many a "B" movie where the plot is a battle between a gang of criminals
and the local residents. It is truly unfortunate that the formation of
cities, and the devolution of cities into suburban sprawl, has led to
the disintegration of the automatic feelings of community which formed
in any rural population. One of the missions of the proposed altered
value system is then to restore this feeling of community in spite of
dwellings which exist in an area of suburban sprawl. Accordingly, we
give new meaning to the term "community involvement" and require such
activity as a part of all individuals who live in any given community.
We simply cannot afford for large numbers of families to be uninvolved
in their communities.
4 This statement is attributed to Benedict [Baruch] de Spinoza (1632-1677), Ethics, 1677, Part I, proposition, 15:note.
5 The familiar phrase, "familiarity breeds contempt," is from Aesop (fl. c. 550 b. c.), The Fox and the Lion.