|A government should
enforce laws, not thoughts
order for an
organization to function properly, all of the members must follow the
same instructions. However, we must make a distinction between when a
government is enforcing laws
that are intended to organize a bunch of
individuals into a team, and when the government is suppressing
their critics, censoring
alternative opinions, or stifling
The purpose of a government is to organize people into a team. However, supervising a group of people is not the same as controlling their thoughts.
A government should not be
allowed to control the thoughts of the people, or stifle
criticism, questions, or curiosity. Everybody should be free to think
about any issue, investigate any issue, and discuss any issue. There
should be no censorship.
Organizations should not control thoughts, either
The same concept applies to the organizations within a society.
Specifically, the leaders of businesses, schools, sports groups, and other
organizations are allowed to organize people into a team, which gives
them the authority to require all of their members to follow certain
rules of behavior and work schedules, but they are not allowed to
the thoughts of the people, or stifle their curiosity.
Only math facts can be enforced
We can prove many of our
math facts to be 100% true. Therefore, we can allow the government to
demand that everybody accept those math facts. However,
all of our other knowledge should be regarded as an analysis,
and therefore, nobody should be allowed to enforce any of it as
"facts", or censor any criticism of it, or censor alternative opinions.
Even the information that we assume is true, such as water boils at
100°C, is not truly accurate. Water boils at different temperatures
depending upon the air pressure, and the items dissolved in the water.
Everything is more complicated than it seems to a human mind.
People should be
to analyze any fact that they are curious about in order to improve its
accuracy. The rest of this section will give two examples of why our
leaders should be prohibited from enforcing facts.
Example 1: Nobody should
enforce health facts
do not know much about health issues, such as nutrition, sleep, water,
exercise, diseases, pain, and reactions to medical drugs, caffeine,
nicotine, alcohol, and other chemicals. Five reasons that it is so
difficult to understand our health are:
1) We are extremely complex
Living creatures are much more complex than any of our mechanical devices.
2) We are genetically unique
Each of us is genetically
unique, which means that each of us has slightly different nutritional
needs, reactions to medical procedures, etc. Therefore, we will not have
complete medical information about humans until we can identify and
take into account the genetic differences between us.
3) Free enterprise systems
A free enterprise system
doesn't support any type of research. A business will conduct research
only if it believes that it can make profit from it.
4) Secrecy and deception
Our paranoia of being
observed and our craving to impress other people is causing us to hide
a lot of information about our lives which would be valuable for doctors and
5) Genetic degradation
Since nature no longer
eliminates the defective people, the human race is degrading
genetically, and this results in every generation having a wider range
of nutritional needs, reactions to drugs, and other health issues.
Since we know very little about health issues, it would be foolish to allow a government or other
organization to claim that
certain health concepts are 100% factual. There are numerous examples in human history of when people suffered
result of other people insisting that some particular piece of medical
information is 100% factual. For example, many
centuries ago it was a fact
would solve lots of medical problems, and that trepanning
would solve certain mental disorders. In the 1950's it was a fact
that thalidomide was safe for use
by pregnant women. Today bloodletting is used only
for certain types of health problems, and trepanning has been discontinued.
For a more recent example,
when I was a child, there were lots of advertisements for Geritol
on television and in paper publications, such as these
and to the right. Those ads may have caused some people to imagine that
they were anemic, resulting in their purchase of those iron supplements.
However, living creatures need all chemicals to be within certain
ranges. Too much of something, even oxygen, will kill us. People should
not take iron supplements unless they need
In July 2020, some scientists published the results of an analysis
of more than a million people, and it suggested that the people with high
levels of iron were dying younger
than the others.
are other people claiming that red meat is bad for us, but what exactly
is in red meat that is dangerous? Consider the possibility that there
dangerous in red meat, but when we eat large amounts
of meat for long periods
of time, the people who have a genetic defect
in the control of their iron levels end up with excessively high levels, thereby causing health problems.
I don't know much of anything about the nutritional needs of the human
body, or the good or bad aspects of red meat. The point I want to make
is that scientists do not know much more about human health than I do, or you
. And business executives might know less
about human health than you and me since many of them seem more interested in keeping up-to-date about home theaters
and the optional interiors
for private jets.
We know so little about human health that it is foolish
to allow businesses to advertise iron supplements, or other medical
products. Those ads are causing some people to imagine that they need a
particular medical product, which can hurt their health, and annoy the
Incidentally, if the only problem with red meat is that it
causes some people to have excessively high iron levels, then the
vegetarian burgers that are high in iron may be just as dangerous
for those people.
Where is the evidence that vegans or vegetarians are healthier than
people who eat meat? Nobody knows much of anything about human health,
but there are millions
of people around the world claiming to know the facts
about human health, and telling us
what we should eat and drink.
Some people are so convinced that they know the facts about cholesterol
that they tell us to get our blood checked for it, and they warn us
about eating too much of it. In reality, nobody has a good
understanding of why there are cholesterol deposits in our veins, or
why the deposits are insignificant in some people while causing heart
attacks in others.
All of the people who are telling us "health facts" should be told to shut up
. They don't have "facts". All they have are "speculations
Some vegetarians are protesting and harassing
the people who eat meat. They are behaving in a manner that is just as
disgusting and unacceptable as Jack Dorsey, the ADL, and Mark Zuckerberg. All of those
people are refusing to listen to and discuss alternative opinion. They are trying to control us. They are treating us as slaves
of them would put us in jail, mental hospitals, or rehabilitation
programs, if they could get away with it. I would not be surprised if
some vegetarians would like a law against "Vegetarian Denial
The only way we are going to learn more about human health is to change our attitudes
towards facts and fiction, and develop a more advanced
government, economic system, and legal system. We must be free to
discuss any issue we please, and be critical of any fact that we have
doubts about. Nobody should be allowed to censor any information, or
prevent research into any issue.
The people who call us "Deniers
" of something, or as "anti
" something, should be considered guilty of slander, censorship, and intimidation. We should not tolerate
any attempt to suppress or censor discussions, criticism, or research.
Also, we would improve our knowledge of human health if we could
maintain a database with as much information about everybody's health
as possible. This requires a government that provides leadership,
rather than a submissive government that panders to the people. It
requires a government that gives us the right to know the truth about
the people we live with, and prohibits people from being deceptive,
dishonest, and secretive.
In every society today, we are allowing so much censorship, secrecy,
deception, and abuse that future generations may regard our era as not
much better than the Middle Ages. For example, today there are some
of the blood from children will improve our health and allow us to live
longer, and some people claiming
that growth hormone is a
"fountain of youth". Are those facts really 100% true? Or will future
generations regard them as idiotic as wearing garlic around our neck to
Imagine if our government was allowed to be as intolerant of alternative opinions as the executives
of Google, YouTube, and the ADL. In such a case, if they believed that injections
of growth hormone or children's blood is beneficial, then we would be required
to take the
injections, and anybody who disagreed would be arrested, censored, or
fired for being a "Growth Hormone Denier", or a "Young Blood Denier".
turned out that the injections caused
health problems, then
everybody would have suffered
as a result of their arrogance. Or, if
the injections turned out to be worthless
rather than dangerous, then we would have wasted a lot of labor and resources on a worthless
medical procedure, and we would have hurt our social environment
and caused a lot of suffering as a result of arresting, firing, tormenting, and
executing the "Deniers".
should not tolerate censorship
of health issues. The people who react to critics with censorship, murder, blackmail, or intimidation are behaving like
an athlete who cannot win
a contest except by sabotaging or murdering his competitors. We should
consider such behavior to be unacceptable
especially for people in
influential positions. A person who is worthy of leadership positions
will be able to defend
his opinions, and he will be able to answer
questions about his opinions.
Our leaders should regularly
earn their position by continuously
providing us with intelligent analyses, suggestions, and advice. A
modern legal system should protect us from journalists, professors,
government officials, and other influential
people who censor, bribe, blackmail, intimidate, and suppress their
Example 2: Nobody should enforce historical facts
Each of us believes that we are
on our personal
life. We assume that
our memories are
. However, a more realistic attitude is that all of our facts
about ourselves are actually just speculations
and some of them are partially or completely false
mind does not want to doubt itself, so it is difficult for us to
believe that some of our memories are inaccurate or false, but the
inaccuracy of a human mind becomes obvious when a crime occurs
and the police ask the witnesses to describe what happened. The police
end up with a variety of different
descriptions, even though
everybody witnessed the same event. Two reasons that witnesses
disagree with one another are:
1) Each person sees the event from a slightly different physical
the earth, which causes them to see slightly different visual images,
hear slightly different sounds and echoes, feel slightly different
vibrations, and smell slightly different odors.
2) Each person has different physical
and mental characteristics.
An obvious example of this concept is that some people have cataracts
in their eyes. We also have different abilities to remember
information, and we have different abilities to process information. We also have different levels of
self-control, which in turn results in some people having a better
ability to keep their emotions from interfering with their analysis of
what they observed.
If we were living in a city in which there was total
coverage of everybody, each of us would discover that some of our
memories are inaccurate
; that no human has a memory that is as accurate
as a computer.
Now consider how this concept applies to human history. Since each of
us interprets an event slightly differently, and we have imperfect
memories, none of us can be 100% certain about the details of the
historical events that we personally witnessed
. So, how can we be certain about
the details of the events that occurred to other people,
or in previous
centuries? And how can we be
certain about the events that occurred before there was photographs, or
before there was a written language?
On 6 January 2020, there was an event at the US Capitol. There were lots
of witnesses, and many of them recorded some of the event with their
cell phone cameras. However, there are lots of different explanations of what happened.
For example, some people say that Trump instigated a riot, but other people say that
Biden supporters were pretending to be Trump supporters and trying
to instigate a riot. Some people say the police tried to prevent
the riots, but other people say that some police were assisting
the people who wanted to start a riot.
Likewise, there were a lot of people who witnessed the counting of the
votes during the 2020 election, but some people say that counting was
honest, and others say that the counting was dishonest. There were lots
of witnesses to the killing of President Kennedy, but they also disagree
on what happened.
people who witnessed the counting of the ballots, the "Capitol riot",
and the assassination of JFK, cannot agree on what happened, even though they witnessed
those events, and even though there are lots of photos and video of the
events. Since we cannot agree on the events that happened during our
, it would be foolish for us to assume that people centuries ago
giving us 100% factual descriptions of the events of their
Actually, people today probably give more accurate descriptions of
events because people today are more educated and have cameras.
It is especially foolish to assume that we can figure out the details
for events that occurred millions
of years ago. For example, many scientists believe that it is a fact
went extinct as a result of an asteroid crashing into the earth, but
can we even claim that it is a "fact" that the dinosaurs went extinct
so. I suspect that it would be more accurate to say that the large
went extinct over a period of millions of years, but some of the
smaller dinosaurs evolved to become modern lizards, snakes, iguanas,
and other reptiles.
Scientists have already altered their "facts" about dinosaurs and
prehistoric humans many times. We should learn from this. Specifically,
we should learn to control our arrogance and acknowledge the evidence that our
"facts" about the distant past should be described as theories,
speculation, or opinions.
The world is currently
dominated by people who insist that their opinions are 100% factual,
and who are actively involved with censoring information and
suppressing their critics. This problem is most
noticeable with the Jews who are trying to stop us from investigating
the world wars, Anne Frank's diary, the Holocaust, and the 9/11 attack.
Those Jews claim to be suppressing investigations in order to protect
, but it does not take much intelligence to realize that
We must raise standards for the people in influential positions.
Anybody who claims that censorship will protect the truth, or
that censorship will protect people from false information, should be
influential position. He may be
acceptable as a factory worker, but not as a journalist, voter, judge,
government official, business executive, or teacher.
There are only a few historical facts that can be proven to be 100%
true, such as some dates and times. For example, we can state with
that an aircraft crashed into the World Trade Center tower at a certain
time and day, but we cannot state with certainty as to what type of
airplane it was, or whether there was anybody in it.
Therefore, historians can tell people to accept the date and time
that the airplane crashed into the World Trade Center tower, but they
enforce any other facts about it. Instead, our leaders should tell us
to feel free to investigate all aspects of the attack, such as
what type of airplane it was, where it came from, and whether it was
being flown by a computer, a pilot in the airplane, or a person on the
Likewise, we should feel free to investigate the event at
the Capitol on 6 January 2020, and we should be free to investigate all aspects of the Holocaust, such as where
the Nazis put the
millions of pounds of ashes, teeth, and bones. Another interesting
issue we should be able to investigate is whether the decrease
number of Jews of Europe during the 1940's matches the increase
of Jews in Palestine, the USA, and elsewhere.
The history courses in the Kastron schools should teach children that history is an analysis
, not a factual description of previous events. Students should be told to
feel free to investigate all historical events, and to look critically
at all of our assumptions about history.
Even more important, students should be taught that we should not tolerate
leaders who try to suppress investigations or critical analyses of
historical events. We should regard those people as either incompetent
, or as trying to deceive us
What is the truth about slavery?
The arguments over slavery
are another example of why we should not tolerate censorship, and we
should encourage investigations and discussions, even if it hurts some
There are some black Americans who are using the slavery issue
to get pity for themselves, and other blacks are using the slavery
issue to demand "reparations
Likewise, some Jews want pity because their ancestors were slaves of ancient
Egyptians, and a Jewish historian, Yosef
of the Jews
almost 2000 years ago, and he claimed that the Jewish slaves built the Egyptian pyramids.
An issue that is even more difficult to find information about is the role Jews had in selling and owning African slaves.
Do the black Americans deserve pity and/or reparations from the US
government? Do the Jews deserve pity, and/or reparations from Egypt? Do
they deserve credit for building the pyramids? Or were Jews the primary slave traders and slave buyers?
Slavery ended before any of us were born, so all of our knowledge about slavery
comes from analyses of documents and events that occurred a century or more ago. This makes it more difficult
for us to understand slavery than to understand an issue that occurred during our lifetimes.
Twitter, YouTube, Google, and the journalists don't seem to be
censoring investigations about the issue of slavery, but that might be
only because not many people are investigating the issue.
Most people seem to regard slavery as an unimportant issue that no
longer affects us.
Should we trust a Jewish historian?
It is possible that Yosef ben Matityahu truly believed that Jews built the pyramids, but consider how
many Jews today, such as Wolf Blitzer, Benjamin Netanyahu, Herman Rosenblat
, and thousands of others
, are deliberately lying to
us about the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, the Nazis, the 2020
election, the world wars, and thousands of other issues. There are so
many Jews lying to us about so many events that we ought to consider
that Matityahu deliberately lied also.
It is also interesting to note that Matityahu initially
fought against the Romans, but after being defeated, he became a Roman,
got involved with the leadership of Rome, and changed his name to the
more Roman sounding "Titus Flavius Josephus".
His behavior is similar to the Jews during the past few centuries who have changed their names and
claimed to be Americans, British, Germans, atheists, Christians, or
Muslims, and who get involved with government officials, wealthy business executives, and other
people, and pretended to be their friends. Some of them have contacted me
and tried to become my friend or wife, and they have
undoubtedly been doing this to some of you
Therefore, we ought to consider that Jews have been behaving in this
deceptive manner for thousands of
We can understand slavery by looking at ourselves
I think we can improve our
understanding of slavery simply by observing
the behavior of people in the world today.
The emotional and intellectual characteristics of the human brain are
determined by our genetic characteristics, and our DNA has not changed
much during the past few thousand years, so we can guess at what people
were feeling and thinking thousands of years ago simply by looking at
people react to similar situations today.
1) Immigrants from primitive societies
The only significant genetic difference between people today and our
ancestors 2000 years ago is that genetic defects have been
accumulating. Our distant ancestors would have been in much better
physical and mental health, but otherwise they would have had the same
emotional feelings that you and I have, and the same intellectual
characteristics. Therefore, when trying to understand the behavior of
people 2000 years ago, we must look only at the behavior of people
today who we regard as being in good mental and physical health.
When we look at the healthy people of today, we can see two events
occurring all over the world, and at all times, and without exception.
At every point in human history, and in every part of the world, we
find some of the people in the primitive societies trying to emigrate
to the more advanced societies. There is only a small number of people
going the other direction.
However, not all of the immigrants are interested in joining
advanced society. Many of the immigrants have two, undesirable reasons
1) To get access to the
better food, material wealth, and living conditions of the advanced
They are misfits who are looking for an easier way to make a living, or
to escape from the police, or to get away from the ridicule and
criticism of their relatives and
Those type of immigrants do not care
whether they are wanted
by the advanced society. Instead, they force
themselves on the advanced
society. Also, they are not likely to be interested in becoming a team member
advanced society. As a result, they may continue to speak
their original language and follow their original culture.
Since many of the immigrants from the primitive societies have below-average intelligence and
education compared to the people of the advanced societies, the
immigrants tend to take jobs that require the least amount of skills
and intelligence. This results in a significant percentage of those
immigrants having low incomes, which in turn causes them to live in
crowded neighborhoods with other poor people.
If an alien from another solar system were orbiting the earth and
watching the immigrants flow into Europe and America, he would notice
that most of the immigrants tend to segregate in neighborhoods that are
scattered throughout our cities, and that they tend to follow their
original culture. For example, the alien would notice that in the USA:
• Instead of speaking
English, a lot of those immigrants speak Hebrew, Spanish, Yiddish,
Turkish, Russian, or some other language.
• Instead of practicing some variation of the Christian religion, they practice Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Satanism, or Paganism.
• Instead of celebrating Christmas, Easter, and Thanksgiving, they
celebrate Hanukkah, Ramadan, the Chinese new year, or Cinco de Mayo.
• Many of those immigrants have jobs that do not pay much money, and many are servants of the wealthy people.
• Many of those immigrants are involved with crimes.
The alien would notice that most of the immigrants are low in the
social hierarchy. This could bring the alien to the
conclusion that the immigrants are some type of slave, but that would
be a mistake. The immigrants are not slaves,
and they are not
Rather, they came to our nations voluntarily. They prefer to be a
criminal, maid, farmworker, or illegal alien in an advanced nation
rather than remain with their own people in their own nation.
As I pointed out in such
images as the one below, at this
page, we are not
abusing the immigrants, or forcing them to work for us. Rather, they are forcing themselves on us
. They refuse
to go back to their own nation, and when our government deports them, they try to sneak back into our nation
. Their behavior is exactly like a rat
that is trying to get into our house. It would be more accurate to describe them as human rats,
than as slaves
or abused minorities.
My ancestors were not human rats
English was a foreign language to my relatives when they arrived in the
USA from Denmark, Italy, Switzerland, and wherever my father's mother
came from, but they learned English, and they made their children learn
When my mother was an adult, it occurred to her that she would have
picked up Danish and Italian with no effort if her relatives had been
speaking it around her when she was a young child. She asked her
Italian grandfather why he never spoke Italian when he was around his
grandchildren, and his response was something to the effect of, "Because I am an American, not an Italian, and I wanted my children be Americans.
By comparison, the Zionist Jews from Russia had no desire to become
Americans. They are a foreign army who came here to deceive and
conquer. They were never Russians,
either. Rather, they were and still are "Jews", "The Superior Race", and "God's Chosen People".
Some Americans who are, or have been, living in China,
have pointed out that many of the Chinese people do not
foreigners as citizens, especially not foreigners who refuse to adapt
to the Chinese
culture. However, when the Chinese people emigrate to the USA, they expect
us to treat them as citizens and as friends even if they refuse to
adapt to our
culture. The same hypocritical and selfish behavior is seen
with some of the people from India.
The reason why this behavior is so common is because humans are animals
. An animal will move to whichever land it regards as the most desirable, and it will push away
the animals that are already living there. That is essentially what millions of immigrants are doing in the USA and Europe.
Our selfishness is allowing immigrants to abuse us
make the problem of immigration more complex, the main reason we allow the "human rats" in is because
we are selfish
want to avoid work
Many of the human rats from China helped to build the
American railroads, and today millions of Americans are using other human rats for
gardeners, maids, nannies, farmworkers, and unskilled laborers. It
requires a lot of self-control for us to turn
away their offers to work at low wages.
If we can admit that our desire for low cost labor is part of the
reason we have problems with immigration, then we will have a better
understanding of slavery
Specifically, we should assume that our ancestors had just as much
trouble turning away the offers of low cost labor. We should assume
that the people
a few thousand years ago were behaving
virtually the same as we do today, and that the
cities thousands of years ago had the same problem that our nations
have today. Therefore, we should assume that:
The first cities in
India, Mesopotamia, and Egypt were attracting hordes of "human rats" who had no desire to join the advanced society but instead
were forcing themselves on
the advanced society simply to get access to the better living
conditions, or to escape from the ridicule of their family and
2) The people in the advanced cities had just as much difficultly as we
do in resisting the offers of the immigrants to be low-paid workers
I suspect that most of the people that we assume were "slaves" in the ancient cities were not
truly "slaves". Rather, they were "human rats" who were choosing to be the low-paid servants
an advanced city rather than remain in the primitive, miserable
conditions of their own society. This would explain why none of those
slaves bothered trying to escape.
The children of human rats are likely to whine about abuse
To complicate the issue of immigration, once the "human rats" start
their children, and especially their grandchildren, will think of
themselves as "citizens", and so they are likely to resent their low
status and low wages.
When the poor and uneducated people first come to America and Europe,
they are grateful to have a low-paying job and live in a home that is
miserable and overcrowded. However, their children become accustomed to living with us, and
they will think of themselves as citizens of our nation, even if they
are continuing to speak a different language and practice a different
culture. They will not be grateful for a low-paying
job or a miserable home because they did not experience the suffering
that their parents were familiar with. Instead, they are likely to believe that they are being
discriminated against, or abused.
We should assume that this lack of gratitude among the descendants of
the immigrants was occurring thousands of years ago in ancient Egypt
and Mesopotamia. However, the lack of information about life in that
era could cause historians to misinterpret the complaints of the
children of immigrants as being a "rebellion of the slaves".
|Is the story of Moses based on a real event?
issue of no importance but which you might find entertaining is the possibility that the story of Moses is based upon a "lack
of gratitude" situation. That story is obviously fictional, but there
are certain aspects of it that make me wonder if it is based on a true
In that story, the Jews were led out of Egypt by Moses, and
even though they were ignorant, uneducated people with no weapons, they
managed to escape from the Egyptian army. They claim God saved them
with magic, such as allowing Moses to part the Red Sea.
Perhaps those Jewish slaves were in a similar situation as the illegal
aliens in the USA. The first Jews to force themselves on the Egyptians
may have been grateful to have a low paying job, but their
grandchildren may have regarded themselves as being discriminated
against and abused. Moses may have decided to take them out of Egypt
and start his own nation, thereby allowing him to become a king.
Since the Jews
were not truly "slaves", they were free to leave Egypt, but leaving
Egypt in that era, and finding a new place to live, meant walking for
very long distances through a giant desert.
Moses and the slaves would have realized that they needed a lot of
food, water, and tools to survive such a journey. Also, they would
benefit from some camels and carts. Since the slaves did not
have a lot of material wealth, they may have decided to steal as much
as possible, and try to sneak out of Egypt during the night.
Egyptian people and the Egyptian army would have reacted by chasing
after them and trying to get back what they had stolen. The army would
have been able to get back a lot of the animals and tools, at which
point they would go back home and let the slaves wander into the
desert. From the point of view of the slaves, however, they were
victorious people who had defeated the Egyptian army. Their stories
would be misinterpreted by historians as a successful rebellion of the
slaves from a group of cruel, selfish Egyptians.
2) The expulsion of the misfits
other event that we see happening all around the world, and which will help us understand the issue of "slavery", is that our
natural tendency is to push the misfits out of our lives.
I suspect that most
of the African slaves that were purchased by
Europeans and Americans were the misfits that the other Africans
decided to sell
Just as the Caucasian Americans want to believe that their ancestors
who left Europe were among Europe's finest people, the black Americans
want to believe that their ancestors were Africa's
finest people, and that they were kidnapped by cruel slave traders.
However, it is not sensible to believe that a small group of slave
traders walked into the African villages, grabbed some of their
, tied them up with rope, and then carried their victims out of the
village without being attacked.
The most likely explanation of where the slaves came from is that the
slave traders asked
the Africans if they had anybody they were willing
to sell as a
, and the Africans responded by selling their
criminals, retards, and misfits.
Were the slaves angry? Or grateful?
If the Africans had not
those people as slaves, what would have
happened to them? I suspect that most of them would have had a miserable
life, just as we see with the
misfits of the USA,
Japan, Europe, and all other nations of that era. There was no
government welfare in that era, and living conditions were much more
difficult than they are today. The misfits in that era had a more
difficult time surviving compared to today.
I would bet that if we could go back in time, we would discover that some of those slaves were actually grateful
that they became slaves because they had a better life as a slave
in the USA than as a misfit or criminal in Africa.
Why did some American slave owners hurt their slaves?
Some of the African slaves were beaten or killed by the Americans who
had purchased them. The black Americans use those events
as proof that the American slave owners were cruel. However, a
slave was a very expensive item
It would have been equivalent to a
person today purchasing a private airplane. How many of the people who
purchased a private airplane have wanted to beat their airplane with a
Somebody who is going to spend a lot of money on a slave is
going to want to beat it or kill it. He is going to want to take
care of it,
and get as much work from it as possible. It makes no sense
for a person to purchase a slave for a very high price, and then kill
Purchasing a slave and then beating it or killing it is as stupid
as purchasing an expensive horse and then beating it and killing it.
A more realistic explanation of why some of the African slaves were
beaten or killed is because they were disgusting people
. To rephrase that concept, the American
slave owners became just as disgusted with some of the African slaves
as the African
people who sold them.
The Africans in Africa sold the misfits that they did not like.
those misfits became slaves in
the USA, their behavior was just as awful as it was in Africa. This is
a very important concept to understand. Specifically, a person who has
such a mental disorder that he is disliked by his relatives and
neighbors in Africa is likely to be disliked by people in Japan, China,
Germany, and Hawaii. A retard is just as retarded in the USA as he is in Africa.
It is also important for the people in a personnel department
to understand this concept.
Specifically, when a person who is applying for a job complains that
his previous job was horrible, or that his boss was cruel, or that he was
treated like a slave, or that he was unappreciated, it is foolish for
department to feel sorry for the person and believe his stories.
There is not much of a difference between the
work environments of most businesses. Therefore, if a person complains
about the "difficult" working conditions, or the "brutality" of the
supervisor, he should consider the possibility that he is a misfit
who is going to complain
no matter which business he works for. He should look critically at
himself to determine if he is the source of his problems, in which case
he might be able to improve his situation by changing his attitudes and
As I have described in such documents as this
each person is his own worst enemy. It is detrimental to blame other
people for our troubles because that prevents us from learning from our
mistakes and improving our lives.
Of course, there are some businesses and jobs that truly are
unpleasant. When a person complains about a job, we can determine
whether the job
is truly unpleasant, or whether the person
problem, by noticing how many other people
also complain about the job.
For example, certain jobs at the
slaughterhouses cause a lot
of complaints, and that would be an
indication that those jobs truly are unpleasant to most people.
There are also lots of complaints from people in the entertainment
business of drugs, pedophilia, and "casting couches". Dirk Benedict, an
actor, has even claimed that
there have been "hundreds of murders" in Hollywood. There are so many
of those complaints that they should be considered as valid complaints,
rather than the senseless whining of a few misfits who are having trouble coping with a normal job.
The point of this section is that some of the employees who complain about "hard work" or cruel coworkers are misfits
One possible reason is that they are genetically so similar to
our prehistoric ancestors that they have trouble following schedules,
working in a team, following orders, or paying attention to a task for
hours at a time. Therefore, if a personnel
department feels sorry for them and gives them a job, they are likely
be grateful for only a short time, and then they will start complaining
that the job is hard, or that the boss is cruel.
The people who claim to be victims should consider that they are the cause of their problems.
This concept also applies to the Jews who whine about how they have
been evicted from one nation after another because of anti-Semitism.
Those Jews are analogous to a person who has been fired from dozens
of jobs, and who claims that he got fired because all
of the people in all
of those businesses have a mental disorder.
The more likely explanation of why every society evicts the Jews is because once we get to know them, we become so disgusted
that we want to push them out of our lives.
Getting back to the slavery issue, the American and European people did
not realize it, but they purchased the human trash
Africa. They purchased low-quality
serious mental disorders. However, when the African slaves reproduced,
some of their children were better
behaved than their parents, and that resulted in slaves with much
better behavior than the original slaves. Those well behaved slaves
could cause a historian to make the mistake of assuming that most of
the slaves were well-behaved Africans who had been kidnapped by cruel
It is absurd for the black Americans to demand reparations for slavery.
would make more sense for the black Americans to be thankful
ancestors were sold as slaves because that gave their ancestors a
better life, and the opportunity to reproduce and raise children in a much more pleasant, advanced society. How many of
the black Americans of today would have been born if their ancestors
had remained in Africa?
The descendants of slaves who live in the USA should be grateful
they are living with us, but they are not
because, just like the children of the illegal immigrants, they were
born in this nation, and so they think of the USA as their
home, and they regard us as
Most of the immigrants
from Europe were human trash, also
A similar situation occurred with the Europeans who emigrated to the
USA. The Europeans did not sell their misfits as slaves, but some of the Europeans encouraged them to emigrate to the USA.
Most of the misfits were too
frightened to travel to the USA in a wooden
boat and start a new life in a different culture, so only the most courageous of the
to do it. Therefore, the USA did not get a random sample of the
European misfits. Rather, we got the more adventurous and courageous
misfits. When those misfits reproduced, some of their children were
much better behaved, and some of them also inherited that high level
of courage and independence.
Some American history books mention that when the immigrants from Europe
arrived in the USA, they were forced to take low paying,
miserable jobs, and they were treated almost as badly as the African slaves.
However, a more realistic explanation of why so many immigrants were
badly treated is because, as with the African slaves, they were the misfits
of Europe, not the
For example, the potato famine caused a lot of people from Ireland who were failures
at farming to move to the USA. Those misfits ended up in low-paying jobs,
or as criminals, simply because they were Ireland's failures
, not Ireland's most talented, responsible, and skilled people.
immigrant to the USA
ended up in a low-paying job and miserable housing, then we could
conclude that the American people truly were abusing the immigrants.
However, there were lots of immigrants who walked off the boats and
soon started a successful business, or a successful farm, or
found a high-paying job.
of the Chinese who came to the USA ended up working in low-paying,
miserable jobs, but that was not because the American people were
racist creatures who wanted to abuse the Chinese. It is because those Chinese immigrants
misfits of China
After a few decades of bringing stupid Chinese people into the USA, a
lot of Americans had come to the conclusion that this policy was a
mistake. President Arthur signed
the Chinese Exclusion Act
1882 to prohibit the immigration of Chinese laborers and allow only the more educated
and skilled Chinese people.
The Chinese Exclusion Act was terminated in 1943, and since then the
USA has been returning to its original purpose of being a homeland for
the wretched refuse, huddled masses, underdogs, criminals, weirdos, and
freaks. During the past few years, most European nations have also been
accepting those type of migrants.
We tend to pout, hate, or
cheat when we fail
Animals do not accept losing
An animal will fight to its death in
order to save itself. Furthermore, they do not follow any rules of
behavior. They only follow their emotional cravings. If they were to
express their philosophy in words, they would say that they "do
whatever it takes
to achieve their goals. They do not consider anything to be "cheating",
and they do not care about the consequences to other animals.
Humans inherited that same intense craving to achieve our goals and win
our competitions. When we fail at something, we become angry or we
pout. We do not accept losing in a calm manner.
We also inherited the attitude of doing whatever it takes
to win, but
we have the intelligence to realize that this attitude can be
destructive. Therefore, we developed some rules of behavior. We
have defined certain activities as illegal, immoral, cheating, or cruel.
Due to our genetic differences, some people are better able to accept
losing, and some people are more willing to follow the rules. If we
could measure those two qualities, we would create two different bell
graphs. The people who have the most trouble dealing with failure and
following rules can be very destructive because they are likely to do whatever it takes
to get what they want. For examples:
• The women who become so upset about not
having a baby that they cut open a pregnant woman and steal her baby.
• The men who become so upset about failing to get sex that they kidnap or purchase children for use as sex toys, or who rape
• The people who become so upset at not being
wealthy that they steal, extort, burglarize, or join crime networks.
Most people will not commit a serious crime in order to get what they
want. Instead, most of us will just pout or become angry. We would all
have a more pleasant life and a more pleasant social environment if
everybody could exert some self-control and accept failure in a more
calm and peaceful manner.
Diversity is impractical because we cannot accept failure
inability to accept failure is one of the
reasons that "diversity" is
impractical. When we put two or more groups of people into a
competitive event, and when the groups have different abilities, one
group will lose more often than the others. Since we have trouble accepting failure, the group that
loses is not likely to look critically at itself and accept its
failures as due to its particular genetic limitations. Instead, they
are likely to pout and/or become angry at whichever group wins the most often, and
accuse them of cheating or discrimination.
This concept has been known for thousands of years, but we have been
applying it only in a few situations. For example, almost all athletic
events practice "age
discrimination" and "sex discrimination." Some sports also
separate athletes according
to their weight. We also have separate sports for the people with physical handicaps. However, we do not separate the different races of
people because we are trying to pretend that all races have identical
If we were to practice diversity with athletic
events, we would mix men, women, different ages, midgets, physically
handicapped people, and everyone else in the same events, and we would
pretend that everybody is equal to one another. This would result in
certain people always winning, and certain people always losing. It
would create anger and pouting among the people who always lose.
We create a miserable social environment for ourselves when we practice
diversity because we are not identical to one another. If humans did
not care about losing a competition, then diversity would be possible,
but we do not want to lose. Therefore, diversity will always result in a lot of pouting, hatred, cheating, anger, and revenge. This creates a
miserable social environment for everybody.
An interesting example of this problem is the free enterprise system. The free enterprise system practices diversity because it puts everybody into the same competitive struggle for money,
regardless of whether they are male or female, children or adults, or
British, Africans, or Chinese. The free enterprise system does not
discriminate against anybody, or favor anybody.
The women, for example, must compete against the men in a free
enterprise system, but men are almost always going to beat women in a
competitive battle to be a successful engineer, executive, scientist,
farmer, machinist, and construction worker. The women will be able to
beat the men in the jobs that women are better at, such as the jobs
that require finger dexterity, but the women are
likely to ignore their successes and become upset with the jobs that
they fail to get.
If a woman cannot understand and accept
that she lost a competitive battle with a man because the man is better
suited to that particular job, she might react by assuming that she
lost the battle because of sexism, glass ceilings, or discrimination.
This in turn can result in her pouting, hating, trying to get revenge
on men, and/or giving her such a bad attitude that she cannot form a
All societies separate men and women in athletic contests because
we are willing to acknowledge the evidence that men and women have
different physical characteristics, but every society is refusing
to acknowledge the evidence that there are emotional and
intellectual differences between men and women, and this results in
every society putting men and women into competition with one another
for all of the non-athletic events.
Our policy of being "fair" and "equal" to men and women is causing
fights between men and women. We would have a more pleasant social
environment, and better relationships, if we switched to studying the
differences between men and women, and experimenting with treating men and women differently.
Likewise, every society is refusing to acknowledge the evidence that
different races have different mental abilities, and this results in
every society forcing all of the races to compete with one another.
This is resulting in some races whining constantly about discrimination
Certain races of Africans dominate
basketball, but the other races of Africans, Chinese, European, and Indian are not whining about
discrimination because even the stupid people can understand that those
particular African races truly are superior at basketball. Why can't we acknowledge that there are differences in our mental abilities, also?
In a democracy, and in a free enterprise system, the leaders pander to
the people, so we have leaders pandering to the women and minorities
that are constantly whining about discrimination. This makes the
situation worse by encouraging anger, pouting, and whining.
A democracy allows the losers to vote
reason that a democracy is hopeless is because it allows people to vote
even if they have made such terrible decisions for themselves that they
have not enjoyed much of their life. These people should be described as
" in life, even if they acquired a lot of money or fame, because
they failed to deal with life's issues and figure out how to set up a nice life
Most people seem to believe that a person is a "success" if he has lots
of money, but I think it would be better to consider a person a
"success" if he figures out how to enjoy life. The people who end up
dying while still in a state of frustration, disappointment, anger,
regret, and sadness should be described as losers
. Those people failed
with life, and they are not likely to be effective voters. Two reasons are:
1) The losers tend to
develop a destructive attitude.
are the descendants of the dominant monkeys, so we have strong cravings to
fight for the top position of the hierarchy. We do not want to be
"ordinary". We want to imagine ourselves as the best person, and we want
to look down on other people as inferior. We want to be admired, not
ridiculed or insulted. We want to be regarded as the standard to judge
2) They could not provide leadership for themselves.
Only a small number of people end up becoming admired by large numbers
of people. Most people never get out of the "ordinary" category. Some
people make such a mess of their life that they end up in the
"disgusting" or "pathetic" categories, even though some of them are wealthy and famous.
If we did not have an intense craving to be the dominant monkey, then
we would be able to accept our status as an ordinary person, or as a loser. Unfortunately,
our craving for the top position can cause us to react to failure with anger, pouting, or cheating. Those
are detrimental attitudes for a voter, and for people in influential
For example, many of the black and
Hispanic people who have failed in their life have reacted with anger
and pouting. They imagine that they have been discriminated against by
white supremacists and racists. They are destructive as voters because they will
look for candidates who support their idiotic fantasy that they are
victims of mysterious, white racists.
Likewise, if a woman who has failed in life becomes angry at men, she might become a voter who looks for candidates who
support her bad attitude that men are abusing women.
The people who have failed in life, and who are blaming other people
for their failures, are not likely to look for candidates who can
provide us with guidance or advice. Rather,
they look for candidates who support their hatred and pouting.
A person who has made a mess of his own life failed
at providing intelligent guidance to himself, so it is foolish to
expect him to provide intelligent guidance to a society. We do not
want the people who failed in medical school to perform surgery on us, or give advice to surgeons,
so why do we allow people who are failures in life to determine the future of our lives?
This Constitution believes that we will provide ourselves with higher
quality government officials when we restrict voters to people who have
been such a success in dealing with life's problems that they have
figured out how to provide themselves with a pleasant life.
The voters should not be "victims" who are angry, whining about discrimination, or blaming other
people for their troubles. They should not be people who repeat the same mistakes over and over. Rather, they should
be people who learn from
failures and find solutions to their problems.
Example: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
An example of how the
losers tend to give us government officials who pout and hate is
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. On 12 January 2020 she created this
hour-long speech in which she complained about white supremacy
deception in the media, and that President Trump is trying to cheat in
the elections. One of her remarks (at about 53 minutes) is:
going to have to figure out how we rein in our media environment so
that you can't just spew disinformation and misinformation. It's one
thing to have differing opinions, but it's another thing entirely to
just say things that are false."
She suggests that the government create an agency to protect us from
However, one of the purposes of this document is to point out that
facts and fiction are whatever a human mind wants them to be. How can a
government agency protect us from false information when we all have a
different opinion on what false information is?
A government agency will protect us from the information that the
officials of the agency regard as false, but that is not necessarily
what you or I would consider to be false. For example, she accuses Trump
— not the Democrats! — of cheating during the 2020 elections.
This Constitution does not want any government agency, organization,or person
to protect us from false information because that is authorizing somebody
to dominate our thoughts and control what we think. This Constitution wants to do the exact
. Specifically, encourage curiosity, research, and discussions.
Everybody should be free to disagree with a fact
only way to improve our understanding of slavery, immigration, the 9/11
Holocaust, the deterioration of Roman society, Anne Frank's diary, and
events is to prohibit all types of censorship, and encourage analyses
of all historical information. Everybody should be encouraged to look
critically at historical facts because:
• Every historical fact
considered as potentially inaccurate,
and possibly completely false
simply because it is difficult to figure out what happened in the past.
• Many historical facts are from the writings or testimony of people, and people
often lie in order to cover up their crimes, hide something they are
embarrassed about, protect their children, or to get revenge on
somebody. Therefore, we must be free to consider the possibility that
some historical facts are deliberate
attempts to deceive us.
should not censor information simply because some people whine that the
information is false, racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, or denying climate
change. We also should not let ourselves be intimidated by
people who claim that their feelings are hurt by investigations.
We should restrict the
influential positions to people who encourage us to explore
the universe. They should not
dampen, censor, or suppress our questions, curiosity, or
We must allow leaders to say,
“I don't know.”
Our natural tendency is to bow or curtsy before our leaders, such as Theresa May does in the photo
to the right, even if our leaders have nothing intelligent to say, and never provide any useful leadership.
As I pointed out in the previous document of this series, in order for us to get better leaders, we must have enough
self-control to change our attitudes
We must push ourselves into treating our leaders as "people" or "employees" rather than as
gods, Kings, or Queens. We must be willing to accept the fact that they
don't know much more than you and I
, and that they often make mistakes.
For example, in 2012, an Italian court convicted
scientists for failing to predict an earthquake. This problem
began when some of the Italian people who live in an earthquake zone
put pressure on scientists to predict earthquakes. The scientists, and
other people in leadership positions, should have told the people that
the technology to predict earthquakes does not exist, but the
scientists could not control their arrogance. Also, everybody is in the
habit of pandering to the public, rather than providing leadership. So the scientists made their
predictions, and when an earthquake occurred that was not predicted,
the citizens reacted with anger, and filed a lawsuit against the
Although that is an extreme example of people who expect the
authorities to be all-knowing gods, and who react with anger when the authorities
make mistakes, this problem occurs frequently with medical doctors. We
want a doctor to have the answers to our medical problems, and
to be perfect with his surgical procedures. We do not want a doctor
to make such remarks as:
“I don't know what is causing your
medical problem, but we could experiment with ...”
Most people would react to
that type of remark with fear
, and they would go to another doctor, and
they would continue going to other doctors until they found one who
claimed to know what the problem was. The people who react in that
manner are putting pressure
on doctors to pretend that they know more than they know, and that
their surgical procedures are closer to perfection than they really are.
We want doctors to be perfect, but they cannot be perfect because they are people
. Expecting doctors to be perfect is causing them to pretend to know more than they do, which is deceptive
That deception will make us feel good, but it interferes with our
ability to understand and deal with our medical problems. We need to
know the truth
, not be titillated with pleasant fantasies.
Likewise, when we assume that surgeons are perfect, we can become upset
or angry when a surgeon makes a mistake. Some people react to the
mistakes by filing lawsuits. Unfortunately, lawsuits do not
solve problems or
improve our medical care. Rather, they make our situation worse
The lawsuits cause doctors to purchase expensive insurance policies, which increases the cost of medical care. It also
results in hospitals and doctors making patients sign legal forms in
which they agree to the potential side effects and consequences of a
This Constitution does not allow lawsuits in Kastron, and it does not want doctors
to pander to the public. Instead, the government should force the
public to accept a more realistic attitude towards medical care.
Specifically, the public is to be pressured to acknowledge that doctors
, and that they
make as many mistakes as the rest of us, and that many of our medical
procedures are "experiments" or "educated guesses" rather than "100%
The Kastron schools are to prepare children for society,
and one of the brief lessons the schools should teach is that all medical
procedures and drugs have complications and risks, and that anybody who
wants a medical procedure must be willing to take the risk. By making that attitude an official
part of the
school curriculum, a society would not have to waste its resources or
time on the printing and signing of thousands of legal documents, and
nobody would be allowed to file lawsuits against doctors.
A doctor should not
have to pretend to know everything, or waste his
time on warnings that medical procedures have risks. When a doctor
makes a mistake, the quality control department should investigate in
order to understand
it occurred, and use that knowledge to try to reduce
such mistakes in
the future. There should be no attempt to punish
the doctor, or reward
We should stop trying
to control people
Doctors would learn more about human health if we stopped trying
to control people's use of medical and recreational drugs. Our attempt
to stop people from abusing drugs is causing people to lie
about their use of drugs, which
can cause medical researchers and doctors to make mistakes in their
interpretation of our health issues. The people who experiment with or abuse drugs, such as "Dr. Tony Huge
are "voluntary laboratory rats", and we ought to take advantage of the
situation by learning from their experiences rather than punishing