Hufschmid's main page
Page for this series
Philosophy page

 
Creating a better society

A Constitution for a New City

Part 5:  Censorship and organized religions
11 February 2021


C
O
N
T
E
N
T
S

Consumers cannot supervise a modern economy
Not many “facts” are 100% correct
Some facts are lies
We benefit from investigations, not censorship
Organized religions are prohibited
Most people never achieve their full potential
An organization must be beneficial
We must set high standards for a legal system
Explain instead of censor





Consumers cannot supervise a modern economy

Consumers cannot be expected to stop corruption in businesses

The free enterprise system is a form of anarchy. It assumes that an unorganized horde of individuals will do a good job of managing an economy simply as a result of each person trying to satisfy his particular desires for food, housing, and other products.

This system works well in primitive societies in which there are only a few small, neighborhood businesses producing simple items, such as bread and shoes, but a modern economy is too large and complex for consumers to supervise. None of us have the time or resources to analyze and make wise decisions about millions of large businesses and technically advanced products.

The inability of consumers to supervise the economy is allowing businesses to get involved with unbelievable levels of corruption, pedophilia, human trafficking, investment scams, censorship, and deceptive products. The consumers are also allowing media companies to get away with incredible amounts of lies and deception in the news reports, school books, and Internet sites.

Crime networks can get control of modern businesses and abuse us to an extent that was impossible for a tiny neighborhood bakery during the Middle Ages. For three examples of the abuse that businesses are capable of today, February 2021:

1) Censorship of crimes
Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube are censoring or adding warning messages to certain remarks and videos, such as those that claim that there was cheating in the 2020 election; that some pizza parlors and other businesses are involved with a pedophile network; that the Apollo moon landing was a hoax; and that the 9/11 attack was an Israeli false flag operation.

2) Suppressing criminal investigations
In January 2021, the executives of Google and other businesses began suspending donations to the Republican political candidates who wanted to investigate the accusations of cheating during the 2020 elections. Their behavior should be regarded as evidence that the cheating really did occur.

3) Attacking their opponents
Google fired James Damore for expressing a popular belief, and they made a public spectacle of the firing, in order to intimidate people around the world into being afraid to express that particular opinion.


Consumers cannot deal with incompetent business executives, either



We cannot improve our economy with temper tantrums, or by feeling sorry for incompetent executives.
In addition to being unable to stop corrupt business executives, many consumers cannot properly deal with incompetent executives.

For example, during the 1970s and 1980s, many Americans began purchasing Japanese steel and automobiles, and many other Americans reacted by advising the American consumers to purchase American products, even if they were lower in quality or higher in price.

Unfortunately, we make our economic system worse when we feel sorry for the business executives who are losers in the competition, and give them tax breaks or undeserved sales.

The proper way to deal with incompetent business executives is to replace them, and to continue replacing them until we get executives who are capable of competing fairly and honestly.

Why not protect us from the "Spherical Earth Deniers"?

The executives of Twitter, Facebook, and the other organizations boast that their censorship is to protect us from false information, and to ensure that we have an accurate view of current and historical events. Likewise, a few people advocate the arrest of Climate Change Deniers in order to protect us from anti-science theories.


However, none of those people are interested in protecting us from astrology, Bigfoot, crop circles, mermaids, UFOs, or ghosts.

Likewise, some Jews want to protect us from the Holocaust deniers, but they don't want to protect us from the "Spherical Earth Deniers".

The consumers who cannot figure out whether they are being protected or deceived by Twitter, Facebook, and the other companies are going to allow crime networks to get control of our economy, and abuse us.


The free enterprise system assumes that consumers will drive out the dishonest, incompetent, greedy, and abusive businessmen. Therefore, a free enterprise system does not bother to set standards for business executives, and it does not provide any type of quality control agency with the authority to replace a business executive. Unfortunately, a modern economy is too complex for consumers to supervise it. Today we need to set standards for business executives, and we need a quality control agency to watch them and pass judgment on which of them needs to be replaced.

Kastron will experiment with a more appropriate economic system

This Constitution gives the city of Kastron an economic system that essentially makes the city a gigantic corporation. All of the businesses are analogous to departments of a corporation, and all of the business executives are regarded as "city employees in a management position". All of the businesses are under the control of the city government. This shifts the responsibility of managing the economy from an unorganized horde of consumers to a small number of government officials.

Of course, if the government of Kastron is as corrupt as the current governments, this would not be a solution, but Kastron will have a different type of government system, and it sets high standards for government officials, voters, journalists, professors, and other people in influential positions.

The people in Kastron are not allowed to get into an influential position simply because they want the job. They have to demonstrate that they have above-average abilities to provide leadership for a modern society. We cannot expect leaders to be perfect, but they should have an excellent ability to recognize when we are being cheated and when we are being protected. For example:
• An adult who cannot provide an intelligent analysis of why YouTube deletes or puts blue warning boxes under certain videos should be disqualified from influential positions.
• An adult who believes that a business, journalist, or government official is protecting us by censoring false information is too intellectually defective for an influential position.

Dear Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, and other VIPs,

Recently I encountered some opinions on the Internet that differ from my own, and I became confused about what to believe and who to trust!

Please protect me from the misinformation, crazy conspiracy theories, demonstrably false accusations, pathological political delusions, baseless allegations, racism, sexism, Democracy Denial, anti-science, Holocaust Denial, and anti-Semitism.


We must qualify to become an athlete

Every nation acknowledges the evidence that most people have average or below-average athletic abilities. No nation gives people the right to become a contestant in the Olympics, or any other sports event. Rather, every nation requires people to qualify for the events, and there is no pity for the people who cannot qualify. We do not worry about hurting a person's feelings by telling him that he is a failure as an athlete.

However, no nation is yet willing to acknowledge the evidence that most people are also average or below-average in their mental abilities. Instead, every nation pretends that all people are equal in their intellectual abilities.

Actually, every nation promotes the even more absurd attitude that all adults are highly educated, super geniuses who will make excellent decisions about voting, raising children, abortion, school curriculum, drug policies, and other cultural issues. As a result of this attitude, every child automatically qualifies as a voter as soon as he becomes a certain age, such as 18 years old.

The free enterprise system is so anarchic that it does not have any age restrictions. This allows children to start their own businesses, and to be used as employees in abusive and dangerous working conditions. This is so unnacceptable that we have recently created laws to restrict how businesses can use children.

There are no age restrictions or qualifications to become a parent, either, thereby allowing children and mentally ill people to become parents. Every nation also allows people to become parents even if they have no desire or ability to take care of their children. This results in children being abandoned in the streets, put into foster homes, and raised by their grandparents or other relatives.

Why don't we have to qualify to become a leader?

There are only a few jobs that we have to qualify for, such as medical doctor, dentist, and pilot. Why do nations set high standards for doctors and pilots, but not for business executives, voters, parents, government officials, journalists, charity officials, or religious leaders?

My guess is that the jobs that have high standards are those that did not exist until recently, such as dentists and pilots. By comparison, people have been involved with businesses, religions, journalism, sports, and other activities for thousands of years.

Our prehistoric ancestors had the freedom to do as they pleased. They had to create some laws when they settled into cities, thereby restricting everybody's freedom, but they did not bother to set standards for government officials, religious leaders, business owners, farmers, soldiers, or anybody else. They gave everybody the freedom to do whatever job they pleased.

Since humans have a strong craving to follow our ancestors, every generation has been following that cultural practice of not caring who becomes a religious leader, businessman, or government official. Every society is still allowing everybody of every age to get into those jobs. Nobody has to qualify for such jobs, or show any evidence that they can do the job properly.

What is stopping us from setting high standards for people in influential positions? It is our emotions. Specifically, our craving to follow our ancestors, and our fear of wandering off the established path and experimenting with a new life.

This Constitution changes that. The city of Kastron will have high standards for all influential positions, including voter, journalist, teacher, government official, and the leaders of social and recreational activities.

This Constitution acknowledges the obvious fact that most people will always be intellectually average or below-average. Most people have nothing of value to say about any issue, and they never will. Most people are never going to provide us with intelligent analyses of crime, abortion, city design, marriage, or other issues, or make an intelligent decision about whether a journalist is giving us accurate news reports or is trying to deceive us, or make wise decisions about which business executives to admire and which to arrest or replace.

The quality of our leaders is more important than the quantity

A democracy promotes the theory that a government becomes better as a larger percentage of the eligible voters decide to vote. As a result of that belief, we are under pressure to vote, and some nations require their citizens to vote.

The U.S. Constitution also promotes the theory that increasing the number of government officials will make it more difficult for them to abuse us. As a result of that attitude, when the American people become upset with their city government, they often advocate breaking the city into pieces, thereby creating more city governments and more government officials.

This Constitution has the opposite attitude. This Constitution believes that we will get the best voters, business executives, government officials, and other leaders when we can restrict those positions to the people who are at the edge of the bell graph. Since those people will always be a small minority of the population, that means the only way we can get excellent leadership is to restrict leadership to a small number of people.

Therefore, in order to ensure that voters do an excellent job of selecting candidates and judging government officials, we must restrict voters to that small minority of people who have exceptional talent. Likewise, in order to have excellent government officials, the government should have only a small number of officials, and that allows us to restrict them to the small percentage of the population with exceptional talent.

As we increase the number of people who are allowed to vote, we have to take people who are closer to the "ordinary" section of the bell graph, and if we allow everybody to vote, then we include the people who are in the below-average section, and the people who are mentally ill. Likewise, as we increase the number of government officials, we have to take more of the less talented people, thereby lowering the quality of the government.

Leaders should provide us with intelligent analyses, not censorship

This Constitution wants standards for people in influential positions to be set so high that only a small minority of people can qualify as voters, government officials, journalists, business executives, and from other influential positions. For example, an adult who cannot show us that he understands why censorship is detrimental should be disqualified from an influential position.

The people in leadership positions should be able to provide us with unique and intelligent analyses of issues. They should not mimic established opinions, or provide vague or confusing opinions. For some examples of the issues that we should expect an intelligent analysis of:

• Congresswoman Marjorie Greene
Why are some Congress officials trying to censor and suppress some of the opinions of Congresswoman Greene? Why don't they instead encourage a discussion about those issues?

• The Evolution Deniers
Why don't those of us who believe in evolution want to censor the videos and remarks that promote Adam and Eve, Noah's ark, or Intelligent Design? Why don't we want to protect our children from the "debunked delusions" of the anti-evolutionists? Why don't we demand the censorship, rehabilitation, reeducation, punishment, or arrest of the evolution deniers, or the people who promote hate speech about evolution? Why don't we fire the employees who promote the story of Jesus rising from the dead on Easter?

A person who wants to become a voter, government official, journalists, professors, or other influential position should be required to provide an intelligent response to those type of questions. We should restrict the influential positions to people who demonstrate an above-average understanding of why only certain people want censorship, and why they want it only for certain issues.

Censorship is useful only to losers and criminals

Censorship is useful only for the criminals who are trying to deceive us, and the intellectual losers who lack supporting evidence for their theories. By comparison, the people who have intelligent supporting evidence for their theories will not be afraid of people who want to verify their data or give their theories a critical analysis.

Censoring people with alternative opinions is analogous to an athlete who realizes that he is a loser, so he sets up a sports event in which he restricts the competition to the people that he knows he can beat, and who arrests, intimidates, or murders the athletes who can beat him.

By comparison, an athlete who is truly among the most talented will not be afraid of competitors. Rather, he will realize that the best way to prove that he is talented is to compete with the most talented athletes. Furthermore, he will appreciate their talent because it will help him to push himself to become even better.

It is also important to note that the truly talented athletes do not want to enter the contests that they know they can easily win, such as contests with children or amateur athletes, because they regard such contests as a waste of their life. A truly talented athlete wants real competition.

Likewise, a person who truly has something intelligent to say will not want to get into debates with children or idiots. Rather, he will want intelligent people to look at his opinions, and give him a critical analysis. He will not be afraid of their criticism, and he will not be angry or envious of their talent. Rather, he will appreciate their constructive criticism and their intelligent opinions because it will help him to improve his own theories.

For example, those of us who believe in evolution realize that our theories cannot explain all aspects of life, so rather than be frightened of people who find mistakes with our theories, and rather than try to censor people with different opinions, we support the research of evolutionary issues, and we look forward to improvements. We hope other people can improve our theories so we can enjoy the knowledge of how life got started, and how it evolved into what it is today.

To some of us, getting a more accurate understanding of an issue is exciting, but censorship interferes with that pleasurable activity. Censorship is desirable only to people who want to hide the truth, or who cannot justify their opinions in an intelligent manner. Censorship is a form of "cheating". This Constitution regards censorship as a type of "crime". For two examples of why censorship is illegal in Kastron:

1) The 2020 election
The U.S. Constitution provides for secretive, anonymous voting, which is a system that is very easy to cheat. A lot of procedures have been created to reduce the cheating, but they cannot stop the cheating. Therefore, the American people should support an investigation of cheating whenever somebody provides evidence of cheating. It is foolish for us to ignore accusations of cheating. There are no benefits to ignoring accusations of a crime.

Why would anybody want to ignore accusations of cheating during an election? An adult who cannot provide an intelligent answer to that question should be disqualified as a voter, government official, and other influential positions. Our voters and government officials should be able to figure out that the only people who want to censor the accusations and evidence of cheating are the people who want to suppress the truth.

Of course, if an investigation is conducted in secrecy, then the investigators could cheat. However, if we stop the secrecy and the censoring of information, then we will have access to all information about the election and the investigation, and that will allow us to learn the truth of what happened.

The people who oppose an investigation of a crime, or who try to censor evidence of the crime, should be investigated.

2) The collapse of the World Trade Center buildings

As I mentioned in my video almost two decades ago, everybody, especially architects, should look forward to an investigation of why the World Trade Center towers and Building 7 disintegrated into dust because that information will help us design buildings that are less likely to crumble from small fires.

All video and information about those buildings and their collapse should be released to the public. There should be no censorship. The people who want to censor information about those buildings should be considered as criminals who don't want us to discover the truth.

Why are so many people tolerating censorship?

Why are so many millions of people around the world tolerating the arrest of Holocaust Deniers, the censorship by Twitter and Facebook, the termination of YouTube accounts, the attempts to censor Congresswoman Greene, and the firing of James Damore? Three possibilities are:

1) Some people lack the intelligence and/or education to understand that censorship interferes with our ability to understand ourselves, life, history, and all other issues. Although all humans have the same mental characteristics, we are not identical. Some people cannot understand concepts that are obvious to other people. For example, years ago I mentioned that a student in one of my high school classes could not understand why the sine of 90 is 1.0.

2) Some people are so emotionally similar to animals that they don't care that they are abused. As I pointed out in a previous document, they make lemonade in response to abuse and other problems, rather than do something to improve their situation.

3) An issue every nation is trying to avoid is that some people's brains don't function properly due to genetic disorders. Their intellectual and/or emotional characteristics cause them to produce irrational thoughts.

Why are so many people involved with censorship?

Why are so many employees of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other businesses willing to participate in the censorship? Why don't the employees become disgusted with the executives for telling them to violate our freedom of speech? Why don't the employees demand that those executives be fired and replaced?

In addition to the three possibilities listed in the previous section, here are three more:

4) They have such a strong emotional craving to follow the crowd that they will follow orders to violate our freedom of speech even if they don't want to.

5) Those companies may have been deliberately hiring and promoting the dishonest people. It might be more accurate to describe them as "criminal enterprises" rather than as "businesses".

6) Those companies have hired a lot of foreigners on H1B visas who will follow any order, including committing crimes, because they either:
a) Are working only to make money, and don't care what they have to do to get it.
b) Are afraid to disobey orders because they don't want to be sent back to their disgusting nation and live with their own people.

How extreme does the abuse have to be?

How appalling, disgusting, or illegal does an order have to be before an employee refuses to obey it? Imagine an extreme example. Imagine if Jack Dorsey, Mark Zuckerberg, and other executives told their employees that after they terminate a person's account, they are to find a way to kill him in a manner that appears to be a suicide. Or imagine if the Google executives told their employees that after James Damore removes his personal belongings from the office, they are to arrange for him to die in a traffic accident.

If groups of employees were following such orders, would you consider them to be "good" employees? Of course not. But how are the employees who are willing to murder people any better than employees who are willing to violate our freedom of speech, or fire a coworker simply for expressing a difference of opinion? And how are they any better than a policeman who follows orders to arrest or harass people for Holocaust denial, sexism, white supremacy, or climate change denial?

“I Was Following Orders!”

The Uniform Code of Military Justice requires that the people in the military "obey lawful orders". They are not to "obey all orders"; rather, they are to obey only the "lawful" orders.

The US military gives all military personnel the responsibility of passing judgment on whether they are being told to do something that is legal or illegal. While that may seem to be a simple yes or no decision, there is no dividing line between anything. There are lots of orders that are not clearly legal or illegal.

A soldier can easily determine that it would be illegal for him to obey an order to burglarize a retail store to steal a television for his commanding officer, but what if his commanding officer told him to break into a building and confiscate the Dominion voting machines so that the machines be evaluated to determine whether they have been adjusted to make Trump lose? Is it legal for the soldiers to get involved with that type of activity?

Our prehistoric ancestors didn't have any complicated issues to think about, but a modern society requires all of us to make a lot of complex judgments. For example, in regards to the military, we could say that they must let the FBI, police departments, and courts deal with the accusations of cheating in the elections. However, the FBI has done nothing about the cheating, and the courts have dismissed dozens of lawsuits about the cheating without any investigation.

Furthermore, there is tremendous evidence that the FBI, police, and courts are also ignoring evidence of other serious crimes, such as pedophilia and blackmail among government officials and Hollywood celebrities, the demolition of the World Trade Center buildings, and the destruction of the levees in New Orleans. There is also evidence that all of this corruption is linked to a gigantic, international crime network of pedophiles and Zionist Jews.

There is so much evidence that our nation has been infiltrated and dominated by an international crime network that we could say that the military would be allowing the nation – actually, the entire world! – to be destroyed if they do nothing. We could say that every nation's military has a responsibility to protect the world from this crime network.

The military personnel have to pass judgment on who is an enemy, and which of their orders are legal, but they are surviving this complexity. Why not require the members of other organizations to follow the same philosophy? Why not demand that the employees of Facebook, Twitter, and other businesses pass judgment on whether they are being told to do something that is illegal?

The employees at Twitter, Facebook, and other businesses who are following orders to censor us could be described as following an illegal order. We could describe them as violating our freedom of speech. Therefore, we could consider them to be criminals.

Those employees might respond that they are "only following orders", but it is dangerous to allow employees to follow any order that they are given.

The employees might also claim that they are "protecting us from false information", but we should respond that an adult with their job and high salary should be able to make a more sensible decision about what is a "crime" and what is "protection". If they are truly as stupid as they claim to be, they don't belong in our nation.

Businesses, militaries, and other organizations require their members to meet certain standards. They don't tolerate members who are destructive. This Constitution wants a society to follow the same concept. Specifically, citizens of Kastron must meet certain standards. A person who cannot figure out whether censorship is a "crime" or "protecting people from false information" should be considered as too mentally defective to live with us. Those people are dangerous because they can be used as attack dogs by crime networks. And the people who don't care whether they are committing crimes are even more dangerous.

This Constitution wants all adults in Kastron to follow the same philosophy that the military personnel are expected to follow; specifically, every adult must make a decision on whether he is given an illegal order.

We must expect children to be pushed into doing things they don't want to do, but adults should be held responsible for what they do. We should not allow adults to use the excuse that they are "just following orders", or that they were "trying to protect us".

Businesses are also abusing their employees

An important difference between this Constitution and all others is that this Constitution regards business executives as "city employees in a management position". The executives are not allowed to have any special privileges, and neither are their children or spouse. They have to follow the same laws as everybody else, live in the same homes, and eat the same foods.

When we regard the "executives" as "employees", it is easier to realize that the executives should treat the employees as their friends and equals, not as peasants or animals.

Unlike a free enterprise system, in which the executives compete to increase profit, this Constitution puts the executives into a competition to find ways to improve life for everybody. Therefore, the executives are judged according to how they are affecting life in Kastron, including the lives of their employees. With that attitude, the executives of Twitter, Facebook, and other businesses that tell their employees to censor people would be committing two, separate crimes:
1) Violating our freedom of speech.
2) Abusing their employees by ordering them to commit crimes.

Likewise, this Constitution considers the executives of Google who were responsible for firing James Damore to be guilty of three crimes:
1) Violating our freedom of speech.
2) Trying to intimidate us into suppressing certain opinions by making a public spectacle of the firing.
3) Abusing Damore.

Was Sundar Pichai responsible for firing Damore? Or was he told to do so by Sergey Brin or Larry Page? Is Pichai really in charge of Google? Or is he just a dark-skinned patsy who was given that job to make it appear as if Google believes in "diversity"? Or was he given that job to reduce the chances that people notice how many Russian Jews have taken control of our businesses, media companies, government agencies, and charities? If Pichai is not the true boss, then the people who put Pichai into that position should be considered guilty of:
1)  Abusing Pichai.
2) Trying to deceive the world.

Finally, this Constitution considers a government official, judge, or police official who orders a policeman to arrest somebody for Holocaust denial, climate change denial, sexism, or racism as being guilty of:
1) Abusing that policeman
2) Abusing the person that they want to arrest.

When is a Non-Disclosure Agreement a form of censorship?

The secrecy that we provide businesses makes it impossible to know what type of agreements the employees must sign, but a large percentage of American employees have signed some type of non-disclosure agreement (NDA).

Most of those documents seem to be what most of us would describe as "fair", such as prohibiting the employee from giving or selling the company's technology to their competitors. However, there are some employees who are afraid to expose crimes because of an NDA. An example are the women in Hollywood who have signed an NDA with Harvey Weinstein.

Weinstein would offer the women a lot of money if they signed an NDA to remain silent. This could be described as "bribing" the women into remaining silent about the sexual abuse, and using the NDA to "intimidate" them into remaining silent about both the abuse and the bribe.

The free enterprise system assumes that people will make wise decisions about which business to work for, and they will avoid the abusive and dishonest businesses. However, this is not happening. Some people are taking jobs with abusive businesses, and they are signing NDAs that the business use to suppress and censor information about their criminal behavior.

If the voters would provide the nation with proper leadership, we would have a legal system that would protect the people from the dishonest businessmen and the abusive NDAs, but the voters are too incompetent to do that. Instead, the voters have given us a government and legal system that is so corrupt that the FBI can get away with spending four years trying to prove that some Russians are responsible for getting Trump elected as President.

I would not be surprised if our legal system would allow Twitter to make employees sign the NDA in the image to the right.

Our prehistoric ancestors did not have to deal with NDAs, but this is an issue that millions of people have to deal with today. It is especially important to ensure that the people who dominate our legal system are making wise decisions about when an NDA is sensible, and when a person or business is using an NDA to cover up rape, pedophilia, extortion, censorship, or other crime.

The people who cannot make a wise decision about that issue should be considered as too mentally incompetent for a modern society. They need to be treated as children, or evicted.

A legal system should not tolerate businesses that use NDAs or other techniques to censor information about a crime. Rather, it should be everybody's duty to expose criminal behavior.

In a free enterprise system, an NDA is useful for preventing employees from stealing technical secrets, but that will not be a concern in Kastron because nobody can copyright or patent any type of idea or technology. All of the technology belongs to everybody in the city.

In the Kastron economy, the businesses will go through cycles in which a group of competing businesses will engage in research and development for a specified amount of time, and then they present their technology to the city for everybody to see, learn from, and improve upon. They will keep their technology a secret only during that development period. However, the businesses do not need NDAs, and so they will be forbidden in Kastron. This will be described in more detail in a subsequent document.

We must judge leaders by their effect on our lives

Life was intellectually simple during prehistoric times, but today we must consider how our behavior will affect other people. We can no longer do whatever we please, or do whatever somebody tells us to do. We must be especially critical of the people in influential positions because they have more effect over our future than the "ordinary" people. We can no longer be passive, submissive monkeys who let our leaders do whatever they please. We should not judge a leader by his popularity, or his ability to make money. We should judge our leaders by how they are affecting our lives and our future.

In the previous document of this series, I mentioned my prediction that future generations will not allow business executives to treat their employees as rats on a treadmill. I will now add that this includes prohibiting executives from using their employees to commit crimes. In our nations today, Twitter executives can get away with ordering their employees to violate our freedom of speech, but I predict that there will be a point in the future when executives who give such orders are arrested.

To complicate this issue, some employees may want to commit the crime that their boss orders them to do, and it is also possible that an employee conceives of a crime, and then convinces his boss to authorize it.

However, those possibilities do not make any of the people less guilty. Consider an extreme example. Imagine if Facebook hired Jeffrey Dahmer, and Dahmer begged Zuckerberg to set up a division of the company to allow Dahmer to kidnap, rape, and eat the people that Zuckerberg wants to censor. If Zuckerberg agreed to Dahmer's proposal, should Zuckerberg be regarded an innocent victim of Dahmer? No, Zuckerberg should be considered guilty of abusing Dahmer, even though it was Dahmer's idea.

Most nations apply this concept to some of the people in leadership positions, but usually only for sexual issues. For example, teachers are considered guilty of a crime if they have sex with their students, even if the student wanted or initiated the sex. We do not allow an elementary school teacher to claim that his six-year-old student wanted the sex, and that he was simply trying to please the child.

We also apply this concept to parents. For example, if a child begs his parents for lots of candy, and the parents let him eat so much candy that he becomes obese and sickly, most people would accuse the parents of abusing their child. If the parents responded, "I was just following orders from my child!", or "I was just giving my child what he wanted!" most people would insist that parents should be leaders who provide guidance to their children.

Likewise, if a child begs his parents to help him commit a crime, and the parents assist him with the crime, the parents would be considered guilty of the crime. However, we do not apply these concepts to business executives. We allow business executives to abuse their employees, the laws, and their customers.

Free enterprise is functioning only because of "economic duct tape"

To complicate this issue, most employees are not abused, which creates the impression that free enterprise is still a wonderful system, and that most business executives are wonderful people who truly care about us. However, a more accurate description of why the free enterprise system is doing so well today is because the thousands of laws and labor unions that have developed during the past century are preventing it from becoming intolerable.

The free enterprise system works properly only in nations that are so technically primitive that there are only a few neighborhood businesses, and they are small. The technical advances that occurred during the 1800s changed that situation dramatically by allowing the extremely selfish and aggressive men to create giant monopolies.



The free enterprise system does not care how anybody treats anybody else.
If it were not for the unions and laws, every nation today would be dominated by a small number of monopolies, and all of those monopolies would be under the control of some of the most selfish, aggressive, intolerant, and violent men. Most people would be employees of those monopolies, and they would be treated similar to the child in the photo to the right.

Furthermore, those monopolies would also be economic monarchies that were passed from parents to children.

If we can control our emotions well enough to look critically at our free enterprise system, we will notice that it began to fail when advancements in technology during the 1800s allowed monopolies to become possible. The free enterprise system began to degrade into an extremely abusive and inefficient system that resembled the kingdoms of the Middle Ages.

The thousands of laws that our government has created to deal with pharmaceuticals, child labor, worker safety, warranties, and other issues, and the thousands of labor unions, could be described as thousands of pieces of "economic duct tape" that are trying to maintain a crude economic system that is becoming increasingly impractical.

Rather than continue to add more duct tape to the free enterprise system, we should acknowledge that it doesn't function properly in this modern era. The free enterprise system is becoming increasingly abusive to consumers and employees.

Since the only other economic system we know of is communism, which is even more unrealistic,we assume that a free enterprise system is the greatest system possible, but it is a crude system that puts us into a battle with one another for money.

One of the sad aspects of life today is that many business executives and employees are so ignorant about the free enterprise system that they don't notice that they are competing to abuse one another, and to make a few people absurdly wealthy. The advertisement for 7-Up (below, and here is an ad for cola) is just one example of how it causes us to waste our lives on attempts to manipulate and exploit one another, and to also manipulate our holiday celebrations, sports events, foods, childcare, and other culture.





 
 
How many people are so ignorant that they boast about abusing us?


One of the principles that this Constitution is based on is that we will get more job satisfaction when we are doing something that is beneficial to society. We need to develop an economic system that causes us to compete to improve our lives, rather than compete for money.

Censorship is more detrimental than "the war on drugs"

The censoring, firing, punishing, and arresting of people for sexism, Holocaust denial, climate change denial, racism, and white supremacism is similar to "The War On Drugs" that many nations have been involved with.

The war on drugs is an attempt to stop people from using certain drugs, and censorship is an attempt to stop people from discussing certain issues. Both of these programs are attempts to control people, but they fail to achieve their goals because both are based on the  unrealistic philosophy that humans can be controlled through punishments.

The reason we try to control people through punishments is because we inherited that desire from our animal ancestors.

It is an emotional policy, not an intellectual policy. We do it because it makes us feel good, not because it makes sense.

Although this technique is acceptable for animals, it is not acceptable for a modern society. When we try to control people with force, we are likely to cause many of the people to become angry, resentful, depressed, or violent.

As I have pointed out in other documents, the laws against drugs do not protect me from drugs because I don't have any interest in the drugs, and they don't protect the people who want the drugs because those people can get them illegally.

Instead of protecting us, the War on Drugs is causing fights between the police and the people who want drugs. Those laws are wasting our tax money on worthless police operations; causing hospitals to waste time and resources on the victims of fights related to drugs; allowing crime networks to thrive; and causing the children of police officers who die in fights to lose their father or mother.

It is acceptable to risk your life when the benefits outweigh the risk, but there is no benefit to fighting with people who do not want to follow laws. We need to provide ourselves with leaders who will acknowledge that punishments do not prevent crime or cure criminal behavior, and who will experiment with changes to our attitudes and legal system.

Instead, we have leaders who believe that they can control people's behavior. For example, in 2012, Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City proposed limiting the size of some sweet drinks in order to improve people's health. If we could measure the stupidity of a law, I think we would discover that Bloomberg's law is more stupid than the War on Drugs. Limiting the size of a few sweet drinks is as idiotic as trying to stop obesity by requiring some candy bars to be made in smaller sizes.



Dear New Yorkers,

I just figured out the solution to alcoholism! Limit the size of some of the containers!

You can thank me by electing me president.


We need to provide ourselves with leaders who can acknowledge the evidence that we cannot stop an adult from abusing salt, sugar, food, alcohol, marijuana, or heroin because we cannot control a person's mind.

We can and must protect children from sugar, candy, drugs, razor blades, poisons, electricity, and all sorts of other potential dangers, but adults must be capable of taking care of themselves. An adult who needs to be protected from sugar, candy, marijuana, alcohol, or conspiracy theories should be classified as "mentally defective". He should not be eligible to vote, have children, or be allowed into any position of importance. He should be put under the type of restrictions that children are under.

A person should qualify to become a voter

If an adult does not have the intellectual ability to analyze the history of our "War on Drugs" and notice that it has not only failed to stop drug use, but it also caused additional problems for us by wasting our resources on fights, jails, and unnecessary deaths, and that it also caused some people to develop bad attitudes towards the authorities, then he will become a voter who will continue to support the government officials who promote a War on Drugs. Those voters will never improve anything because they will support the same policies over and over, no matter how many times they fail.

We must restrict voting to people who can demonstrate an ability to provide intelligent analyses of government policies. Voters should be able to acknowledge when a policy fails, and have the courage to experiment with improvements to it rather than simply repeat it over and over.

We have figured out how to set up educational courses and tests for pilots, doctors, and other people, and we can do the same for voters. My suggestion is that we give potential voters some essay questions so that we can pass judgment on their desire and ability to analyze events and policies, and provide an intelligent analyses.

For example, a group of people who want to become voters could be told to produce an analysis of the "war on drugs". Their analysis would only have to be a page or two, and there is no right or wrong analysis, but it would allow us to compare their analyses so that we can determine which of them shows the desire to do some research into the issue; which of them shows the ability to realize that the war on drugs has been a failure; and which of them has the courage to recommend experimenting with a different policy.

If one of them cannot see that the war on drugs is a failure, or is too frightened of the unknown to support experimenting with a different policy, he should be regarded as intellectually and/or emotionally unfit to be a voter because he will support the same failed policies over and over, and nothing will ever improve.

We must give each class of potential voters a different set of issues to analyze to prevent them from plagiarizing the analyses of previous classes. For a couple more examples, we could ask the potential voters to give us an analysis of:

• Has Twitter or other companies been successful in protecting us from the false accusations about the cheating in the 2020 elections?

• Have the nations with Holocaust denial laws been successful in protecting their citizens from the false information of the Holocaust deniers?

• Are the journalists correct that "pizzagate" theories have been thoroughly debunked?

There is no right or wrong answer to such questions, but requiring potential voters to write a page or two about such issues will allow us to pass judgment on whether the person is capable of doing research, and whether he can produce analyses that are above-average in intelligence. It will allow us to disqualify the people who cannot think very well.

A voter should show us that he understands that censorship allows criminals to cover up their crimes, and it prevents us from getting an accurate understanding of history, which in turn prevents us from making wise decisions about what to do with our future. A voter should also show us that he understands that censorship doesn't protect the truth, either.

How many people can even recognize censorship?

The people at Twitter, YouTube, and other organizations claim to be "protecting" us from false information, fake news, objectionable content, baseless conspiracy theories, pathological political delusions, racism, extremism, sexism, and other "harmful material". They boast that they are our heroes, and they love us and want to take care of us.

If the majority of voters cannot make a wise decision about whether those businesses are protecting us or whether they are censoring us in order to manipulate us, they will be easily fooled into allowing our nation to be taken over by criminals.

This Constitution wants to restrict voting to the people who show a better-than-average ability to distinguish between censorship and protection. Two examples of issues that voters should be able to make intelligent decisions about are:

    Example 1: Is Becca Lewis providing us with leadership?

This article by Becca Lewis claims that the banning of President Trump "across social media wasn't censorship — it was a series of editorial decisions by media companies."

How many voters, if told to read her article, would come to the conclusion that Lewis has provided us with an intelligent analysis of the issue, and that she is correct that the social media companies are making "editorial decisions" rather than "censoring"? How many voters would agree that Business Insider made a good decision to publish her article rather than an article from you or me?





An adult who believes that Becca Lewis is providing us with an intelligent analysis should be classified as unfit to be a voter.


In this previous document I pointed out that when people see a "No Swimming" sign, some of them will claim that they were "wading" in the water rather than "swimming". Criminals use this technique, also. For example, most of us oppose "censorship", so the criminals claim that they are "protecting us from harmful content", or "making editorial decisions", or "removing objectionable material."

If the public were to respond that they don't want to be "protected from harmful content", and they don't want the "objectionable material removed", and they don't want the companies to make "editorial decisions", then the criminals will simply devise some other phrases to describe the censorship.

For example, Time magazine published this article in which the "cheating" during the election of 2020 was described with such phrases as a "handshake" and a "shadow effort" to "protect the election":

The handshake between business and labor was just one component of a vast, cross-partisan campaign to protect the election - an extraordinary shadow effort dedicated not to winning the vote but to ensuring it would be free and fair, credible and uncorrupted.

These "cat and mouse games" will continue until we change our attitude and legal system. A legal system should not allow people to take advantage of the crude aspects of our language in order to deceive us. We should judge people by what they do, and what effect they have on society, not by words they choose to describe their behavior.

The voters, judges, government officials, professors, scientists, and other people in influential positions should demonstrate an above-average ability to recognize a cat and mouse game, and they should not tolerate it.

    Example 2: Is Katie Couric providing us with leadership?

Katie Couric described the people who support Trump as "believing the garbage that they are being fed 24/7 on the Internet". She is just one example of thousands of journalists, Hollywood celebrities, government officials, professors, business executives, and other influential people who have been making incredibly insulting remarks for the past four years about President Trump, the people who support Trump, and the information that they want to censor. They have been especially insulting of the people who talk about "Pizzagate".

Katie Couric and some of the other people made their most insulting remarks while they were on a comedy television program, and we must expect bizarre, nonsensical, crude, and shocking statements from the comedy programs. However, voters should be able to make a wise decision about when people are trying to entertain us, and when they are trying to manipulate our opinions.

Voters should also be able to make a wise decision about whether the accusations about pedophilia and election fraud are "garbage", or whether the garbage is coming from Kathy Couric and other journalists, business executives, professors, government officials, and Hollywood celebrities.

If the people who insulted Trump spent an equal amount of time insulting other people, then we could assume that they are unbiased comedians. However, their hatred for Trump was so extreme that after Trump was President for a year Breitbart posted an article with the title 15 Times Celebrities Envisioned Violence Against Trump and the GOP. A year later they posted Seven Times Hollywood Celebrities Wished Violence Against Trump in 2018. Their hatred was so extreme and so persistent that it should be regarded as evidence that they were trying to deceive and manipulate us.

The American media companies are also providing us with insults from foreigners. For example, the Washington Post published this incredibly insulting document by Chris French, a British professor and psychologist. It is so full of absurd insults that it could be used as evidence that he is unfit to be a professor, or hold any influential position. The title of the article is:
Why is it so hard to deprogram Trumpian conspiracy theorists?

His document is entirely insults, such as:
President Donald Trump injected the toxin of baseless conspiratorial thinking straight into America’s political bloodstream.

For some more evidence that the British and American media are biased against Trump, they spent the previous four years accusing Russians of interfering with the US elections, and criticizing Donald Trump for being friendly with, and trusting, the Russians, but in January 2021 The Guardian expects us to trust a "former KGB spy" who claims that:
Donald Trump was cultivated as a Russian asset over 40 years and proved so willing to parrot anti-western propaganda that there were celebrations in Moscow...

The voters will be easily manipulated by criminals if they cannot make a wise decision about such issues as:
• Whether Professor French and the Washington Post are providing us with an intelligent analysis of our nation, or whether they are trying to manipulate our opinions.
• Whether the media is promoting the honest Russian KGB agents, or the dishonest Russians.

One lesson we should learn from the corruption is that a democracy is hopeless. We must restrict voting to the people who demonstrate an above-average ability to distinguish between the people who are providing us with intelligent leadership, and people who are trying to manipulate us. We must ensure that the voters will not be outsmarted by the intelligent criminals.

Not many “facts” are 100% correct

We prefer distinct categories over spectrums

Our natural tendency is to divide everything into two distinct groups, such as safe and dangerous, or friend and enemy, or true and false, or fact and fiction, or right and wrong, or correct and incorrect. We never developed a word for something other than true or false or right or wrong because we prefer two groups. However, it would make more sense to have at least three groups, such as friend, enemy or neutral. In regards to information, we should have at least one more category for the information we are unsure about.




We should have a third category for information, such as mystery, or unknown, or speculation.



Our mind assumes that we are so smart that our classifications are "correct", but our classifications are nothing more than opinions. Something that we believe to be a "fact" is not necessarily correct, or even partly accurate. History shows that many facts have turned out to be fiction. For example, during the Middle Ages many people thought that it was a fact that iron could be turned into gold through a chemical reaction.

Our decision about whether a certain bit of information is factual, fictional, or a mystery depends upon our genetic characteristics, our education, and our social environment (such as peer pressure). Most of us have similar educations and environments, but there are significant differences in our genetic characteristics, and this results in some noticeable differences between us in regards to what we regard as factual and fiction. A simple example are the disagreements between the people who are religious, and those who are not.



A religious person might categorize information as shown in the illustration to the right.


Although the non-religious people boast that they have a more accurate view of the world than the religious people, it is very likely that many of their facts will be considered fiction by future generations. For example, is "dark matter" really a fact? Did the dinosaurs really go extinct because of an asteroid hitting the earth? Is there really such a thing as wormholes or parallel universes?



How many of the facts that some scientists believe today will be considered fiction in the future?




Information belongs on an "accuracy spectrum"

Sometimes it is useful to categorize items into distinct categories, but we need to occasionally remind ourselves that everything is much more complex than our mind wants it to be. For example, it would be more accurate to put all bits of information somewhere along an accuracy spectrum, as in the illustration below.








Although we cannot truly measure the certainty of a fact, this spectrum can help us realize that we have a lot to learn about the universe.


There are no dividing lines between anything. One thing blends into another. There is not even a distinction between living creatures and non-living objects. For example, is a virus truly a "living creature"? If you consider a virus to be a "living creature", consider the possibility that the very first viruses were even more simplistic than those of today. Therefore, it would have been even more difficult to classify those very first viruses as living creatures.

If life began as a result of chemical reactions, and if we had been around to observe the process, it would be difficult for us to pick the day at which life started. We would notice that the chemicals are becoming larger and more complex, but the process would likely have been so gradual that we would have trouble choosing the millennium that life got started.

Each of us reclassify facts and fiction to fit our current desires

To complicate the issue of what is factual and what is fictional, our opinions change depending upon our environment. For two examples:

    1) Our view of heaven depends upon our emotions

The people who believe in heaven have different levels of confidence in how factual the concept of heaven is. Therefore, they would place the concept of heaven at different positions on the accuracy spectrum. However, the point I want to bring to your attention is that most people shift the location of heaven on the spectrum according to their environmental situation.

Specifically, when people are young and healthy, they are more likely to consider heaven to be a somewhat factual concept, but most people develop serious doubts about heaven once they realize that they are dying. Instead of becoming joyous at the thought of leaving the crime, diseases, corruption, overcrowding, and other problems here on the earth, and getting to experience the nirvana of heaven, they become frightened of death, and they react by struggling to survive, or they waste their remaining moments of life crying, pouting, regretting their life's decisions, or becoming sad.

To rephrase that, people believe in heaven when it has no relevance to them, but once they realize that they are dying, they shift the concept of heaven towards the fictional end of the spectrum.

Likewise, when the parents who put heaven in the factual section of the spectrum realize that their child is dying, they become frightened, and they go to extremes to keep him alive. They do not tell their child that he should look forward to death because he will enter a wonderful heaven.

If there truly was a heaven, and if some of our dead relatives or friends were live streaming videos from heaven to show us what heaven is like, and to answer our questions, then all of us would consider heaven to be 100% factual, and we would look forward to death.





Actually, we would investigate the issue of whether suicide would allow us to get into heaven immediately. If suicide was not an option, then we would stop worrying about death. We would do whatever risky activities that frighten us, such as flying with a wingsuit or bungee jumping.

Or, imagine if some of the dead criminals were occasionally live streaming about their suffering and torture in hell. That would cause us to realize that hell is 100% factual, and it would probably discourage a lot of people from committing crimes. That would do more to stop crime than any type of police action.

    2) Our view of fusion reactors depends upon our situation

Some people consider the concept of a fusion reactor to be mostly factual, and others consider it to be mostly fictional, but, just like heaven, our view about fusion reactors depends upon our situation. For example, if a person is asked to invest a significant amount of his money in a project to develop a fusion reactor, he is likely to shift his view of fusion reactors towards the fictional category.




Facts and fiction are so arbitrary that we change our view of them depending upon our situation.




An animal's brain does not care about reality

The brain of an animal evolved only to survive the battle for life, to reproduce, and to raise babies. The human mind is the same. We have so little concern about reality that our decisions about what is a fact and what is fiction will change according to what we want the facts to be. Our mind will give us the conclusions that we are emotionally attracted to, and dismiss whatever we dislike. Our mind does not care about evidence, contradictions, or hypocrisy.

In order for us to produce intelligent thoughts, we must exert enough self-control to force ourselves to look for supporting evidence, have more than one person verify what we assume to be true, and be critical of our ideas. There was no significant scientific progress in human life until people learned these lessons during the Middle Ages.

We can learn from other people

Our mind assumes that something we regard as a "fact" is definitely true, and something we regard as "fiction" is definitely false, but the human mind doesn't know what is true or false. The human mind is in a dark skull, and it has to guess about what is going on by interpreting the electrical and chemical signals coming from our senses. Everything that we regard as true or false is our interpretation of our sensory data. We are guessing at what is true and false.

Each of us sees something slightly different about the universe. In order to get a good understanding of an issue, we must be able to look at it from different points of view, and that requires that we listen to other people's opinions.

A lot of people are aware of this concept, and they sometimes mention the story of the blind men and the elephant, but very few people practice what they preach.

Our natural tendency is to react to alternative opinions with insults, anger, or by ignoring them. As a result, very few people have "discussions". Most people either give lectures or get into arguments.

Censorship is detrimental

Since facts and fiction are whatever we want them to be, we can improve our decisions of what is factual by listening to different opinions and exploring new ideas. It is detrimental for a society to suppress discussions, criticism, and alternative opinions.

If people would practice what they preach, then everybody who mentions the story of the blind men and the elephant would oppose censorship, and they would also oppose the ridicule of people with different opinions.

Perhaps it would help people understand this concept if we edited the story of the blind men to fit our modern era. For example:

The blind men and the elephant.
A group of blind men heard that an elephant had been brought to their town, but none of them were aware of its shape. Being curious, one of them said: "Let's inspect it by touch and discover its size and shape!" So, they arranged to be taken to the elephant, and then they each reached out to touch it.

The first man felt the elephant's trunk. He later posted a video on YouTube in which he said, "The elephant is like a thick snake". His video was soon deleted by the employees at YouTube for "anti-Elephantism".

Another man reached up to the elephant's ear. He posted a remark on Twitter to let people know that the elephant seemed to be like a fan. His remark was flagged by Twitter for "promoting false information", and after a few days it was deleted by the employees at Twitter. When he complained of the censorship, his account was terminated.

The third blind man touched the elephant's leg. He worked at Google, and he posted a remark to the other Google employees that the elephant was like a pillar or a tree-trunk. The CEO of Google fired him for expressing a "baseless, zoological delusion" that caused so much emotional trauma among the Google employees that it disrupted the company.

Another of the blind men felt the elephant's tusk, and he posted a document that described the elephant as hard, smooth and sharp, like a spear. The ADL convinced the police to arrest him for "Elephant Denial". The judge convicted him and ordered him to spend the rest of his life in a mental hospital where he would get treatment for his hateful attitude. To calm him down, he was given shock treatments and sedatives.


Schools should encourage curiosity, exploration, and constructive criticism

The school system that we have today was originally intended only to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic. The Kastron schools are to be modernized so that they prepare children for our considerably more advanced society. For example, the Kastron schools can tell the students that the math facts are 100% correct, but history should be regarded as a branch of zoology. History is not a collection of facts. Rather, it is a collection of analyses of the lives of a particular species of monkey, and those analyses are full of speculations and guesses.

The schools should teach the students that the most intelligent people are those who can find improvements to historical analyses, or who can learn something from history, rather than those who can only memorize and repeat the historical information.

Schools should give children practice in analyzing issues that have no right or wrong. For example, the students could be given an assignment to write about their speculations about the genetic differences between men and women, and then the students would discuss their ideas to the class. The purpose of that type of assignment would be to give the students practice in researching historical information, thinking about complex issues, and remaining calm as they listen to different opinions and criticism.

A school course cannot make a student learn something, but giving students those type of exercises will help some of them become adults who are better able to remain calm and relaxed in a discussion, thereby reducing the pouting, yelling, insults, and sarcastic noises.

If the schools around the world were giving those type of exercises to students right now, then there would be millions of students getting involved with discussions that are currently being suppressed, such as the genetic differences between men and women, the accusations of cheating in the 2020 elections, the censorship by Facebook, whether Michelle Obama is a man or a woman, how Building 7 crumbled into pieces, whether Jews are telling the truth about the Holocaust, and whether the Apollo astronauts really landed on the moon.

Unfortunately, our schools are under the control of criminals, people who are frightened of the unknown, and people who don't understand that history is an analysis rather than a collection of facts. As a result, students are taught that historical information is factual, and they are under pressure to memorize it rather than wonder about its accuracy. Students are not even permitted to discuss certain issues, and they are not given practice in exploring new ideas.

Although the artists who create images that are similar to the one to the right are likely to be misfits of the modern world who do not like schools, jobs, or laws, that image does have a valid message; specifically, that rather than stimulate a child's curiosity and inspire him to explore the unknown, the schools pressure him to memorize information, suppress his curiosity, and have faith that the information is 100% correct.

In order to improve this situation, the Kastron schools are prohibited from censoring information, and they are not allowed to pander to the students or parents who complain that certain issues are "sensitive" or "controversial". No issue is off-limits to the students or teachers.

Furthermore, the students who find inaccuracies in the information should be regarded as valuable citizens because they are the people who can find improvements to our lives.

Some facts are lies

Censorship makes it difficult to identify the lies

When a scientist is studying an animal, he does not have to be concerned about the animal lying to him, but every human lies occasionally, so we must verify all of the information that we get from other people, even if the person is "highly respected". It is foolish to assume that we can trust the information from a human mind.

However, in order to make a wise decision about the accuracy of the information, we need access to as much information as possible. As we acquire more information about an issue, we can do a better job of understanding the issue.

The story of the blind men and the elephant should make this clear. If the blind men could control their arrogance and consider that each of them have some valid information, then instead of arguing over right or wrong, they would have put all of their information together, and that would have helped them develop a more accurate understanding of the elephant.

The reason censorship is useful for criminals is because it restricts the information that we have access to, which in turn interferes with our ability to understand the issue and determine the accuracy of information. This in turn makes it easier for us to be deceived by lies.

The following sections discuss some of the reasons we lie, and we should keep these reasons in mind when we analyze an issue.

We lie to cover up our crimes

As soon as we are able to speak, we lie about making mistakes and doing things we should not have done. Although the lies of children and the "ordinary people" are usually insignificant from the point of view of a historian and a police detective, the past few decades should make it obvious that there are millions of criminals around the world who create a very serious problem for historians, teachers, crime investigators, and other people because they routinely and deliberately create a lot of false and deceptive "facts" in order to cover up their crimes and manipulate us.

Thousands of criminal journalists, scientists, government officials, business leaders, church officials, professors, and charity officials are producing a lot of deceptive information and lies about the 9/11 attack, the world wars, the Holocaust, and possibly thousands of other issues. They are also deliberately ignoring and suppressing certain information and people.

There are so many criminals, and they are producing so much propaganda and deception, that it is foolish for us to trust any information. We need to verify everything.

Crime networks seem to be much larger and more numerous today, so there are probably a lot more people producing false information today than there were centuries ago, but we should assume that there have been criminals producing false information for thousands of years. Therefore, we should verify all of the information that comes from the people of previous centuries, also.

We lie to impress other people and ourselves

Another reason that we cannot trust what a person says is that all of us lie a bit in order to improve our image. We are in competition for status and a spouse, and this results in all of us hiding the undesirable aspects of our life, and sometimes lying about ourselves. In some cases we lie to impress other people, but we also lie to make ourselves feel better about ourselves.

Most of the lies of the "ordinary" people are trivial from the point of view of a historian, but the lies of government officials, teachers, journalists, and other influential people can have a significant effect on our understanding of history. For example, there is evidence that some of the ancient Egyptian pharaohs and modern communist leaders would delete and edit history in order to make their competitors look bad, and/or make themselves look better. Therefore, even though some historical data comes from "official" government sources and "reputable people", we cannot assume that it is accurate or honest. Many of those people lied simply to make themselves look good, rather than to cover up a crime.

Our natural assumption is that the "respectable" and "important" members of society can be trusted, but there is evidence that we cannot even trust them on something that is as insignificant as their ancestry. For just two examples:
• Jessica Krug, a university professor, claimed to be a black American, when in reality she was a Jew. She is just one of many Jews who have pretended to be something other than Jewish.

• Hillary Baldwin, a Hollywood celebrity, lied about her name, lied about being born in Spain, and lied about having Spanish ancestors. She also faked a Spanish accent to further deceive us into believing she was Spanish.

Those two women show us that a historian who is trying to understand somebody's ancestry must consider the possibility that the person lied about his ancestry, and he may have lied for a reason that does not "make sense" to a normal person.

We lie to avoid conflicts

Some people lie about whether they are male or female, and some homosexuals lie about their sexual desires. Most of those people do not lie in order to cover up a crime. Rather, they lie in order to avoid ridicule or discrimination. However, their lies can interfere with our understanding of history and human behavior.

There are also people who lie about crimes, or remain silent about some information, because they worry about retaliation by criminals. Those people are deceptive, but not because they want to cover up a crime, or deceive historians. Rather, they don't have any confidence that the police will protect them from the criminals.

All of us routinely lie to one another in order to avoid conflicts, such as when we lie about liking somebody's new hairstyle. Most of those lies are insignificant to a historian or crime investigator, but this type of lying has a detrimental effect on our culture. To understand this, imagine an extreme example. Imagine a city in which everybody is so afraid to hurt other people's feelings that all of them are routinely lying about enjoying the clothing styles, recreational activities, music concerts, church affairs, holiday celebrations, and restaurants. It is conceivable that they end up with a culture that none of them like, but all of them are so afraid to admit the truth that they continue to do what they do not want to do because they assume other people enjoy it.

That ridiculous situation is likely to be happening right now in many parts of the world, but not to such an extreme. For example, consider the statue in Australia of the "poop on sticks." How many of the people in that city actually want that statue? And how many want it removed but are afraid to say so because they worry about hurting other people's feelings?

Likewise, there are probably millions of people in the US and Europe who want the refugees and migrants to be sent back to their nation, but they don't say so because they are afraid to be honest.

Our prehistoric ancestors did not have to deal with this issue because they lived in tiny tribes of closely related people who followed the same culture. Today, however, we live in large cities with thousands of people with slightly different desires, intellectual abilities, and emotional characteristics.

We live among people who have differences of opinion, and who have slightly different preferences for food, music, immigration, social activities, clothing styles, art, recreational activities, and jokes. This requires that we be able to deal with the differences between us in a peaceful manner.

This is a complex issue because it's impossible to let everybody do what they want. A democracy assumes that the people will be able to resolve all issues without leadership, but this Constitution wants the government officials to resolve the differences between us. The Kastron government needs to set rules of behavior, but not to appease any group of people. Rather, according to what would be best for the entire city.

We cannot even trust the honest people

Another reason that we cannot trust what a person says is that some people truly try to provide us with accurate, honest, and verified information, but they inadvertently provide us with false or deceptive information because they picked up the false information from somebody they trusted.

An example are the people who have done research into the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, or the Apollo moon landing, but who naively trusted the dishonest journalists, Holocaust survivors, and FBI officials. An honest person who believes the deceptive information from a dishonest FBI agent or Harvard professor is going to give us deceptive information.

This issue is more significant than it may appear. The reason is because the criminals who are aware of this concept will seek out honest but gullible people to promote lies. The way this trick works is that the criminal will trick a person who has a good reputation into believing some false information. This results in a "reputable source of information" who inadvertently promotes lies. We are much more likely to believe a lie when it comes from someone we trust, compared to when it comes from a criminal who has a bad reputation.

The criminals who use this trick are causing a lot of trouble for us by increasing the number of "reputable sources of information" who are inadvertently spreading false information.

The criminals may have deceived everybody, including one another

The criminals who are promoting deceptive information about the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, and other events probably laugh at those of us who believe their lies, and they probably think of themselves as special people who know the truth, but it is possible that everybody has been deceived about something.

There are so many people lying about so many historical events that all of the criminals may have been deceived. There may not be anybody who has been able to avoid all of the deception. A person who is involved with crime networks should not assume that he is one of the special people who has access to the truth.

We benefit from investigations, not censorship

A government should enforce laws, not thoughts

In 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 investigations.

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 their 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 control 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 100C, 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 encouraged 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

We 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 scientists.

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 as a result of other people insisting that some particular piece of medical information is 100% factual. For example, many centuries ago it was a fact that bloodletting 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 more iron.

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.

There 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 is nothing 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 doctors.

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. Some 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 people claiming that injections 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 prevent disease?

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".

If it 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".

We 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 critics.

Example 2: Nobody should enforce historical facts

Each of us believes that we are experts on our personal life. We assume that our memories are factual. However, a more realistic attitude is that all of our facts about ourselves are actually just speculations or opinions, and some of them are partially or completely false.

Our 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 always 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 location on 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 video 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.

The 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 lives, it would be foolish for us to assume that people centuries ago were giving us 100% factual descriptions of the events of their lives. 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 that dinosaurs 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? I don't think so. I suspect that it would be more accurate to say that the large dinosaurs slowly 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 the truth, but it does not take much intelligence to realize that censorship hides the truth.

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 considered unacceptable for an 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 certainty 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 should not 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 ground.

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 in the 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 about history.

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 people's feelings.

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 ben Matityahu, wrote Antiquities 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 important 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 years.

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.

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. Specifically:

   1) Immigrants from primitive societies

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 the advanced society. Many of the immigrants have two, undesirable reasons for emigrating:

1) To get access to the better food, material wealth, and living conditions of the advanced society.
2) 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 neighbors.

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 of the 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 abused. 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, rather 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 it.

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 accept 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

To make the problem of immigration more complex, the main reason we allow the "human rats" in is because we are selfish and 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:

1) 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 neighbors.

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 and servants.
 
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 of 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 having children, 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?
An 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 event.

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.

The 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

The 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 highest quality adults, 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 slave, and the Africans responded by selling their criminals, retards, and misfits.

Were the slaves angry? Or grateful?

If the Africans had not sold those people as slaves, what would have happened to them? I suspect that most of them would have had a miserable and short 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 hammer?

Somebody who is going to spend a lot of money on a slave is not 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 it.

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. When 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 the personnel 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 behavior.

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 has a 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 to 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 of Africa. They purchased low-quality Africans with 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 slave traders.

It is absurd for the black Americans to demand reparations for slavery. It would make more sense for the black Americans to be thankful that their 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 that 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 abusing them.

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 misfits decided 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 high-quality Europeans.

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.

If every 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.

Many 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 were the 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 in 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 women.
• 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

Our 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 abilities.

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, technician, 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 stable marriage.

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 and racism.

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

Another 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 the "losers" 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 for themselves.

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.

We 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 other people.

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 positions.

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.

2) They could not provide leadership for themselves.

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 their 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, the deception in the media, and that President Trump is trying to cheat in the elections. One of her remarks (at about 53 minutes) is:
"...we're 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 false information. 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 opposite. Specifically, encourage curiosity, research, and discussions.

Everybody should be free to disagree with a fact

The only way to improve our understanding of slavery, immigration, the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, the deterioration of Roman society, Anne Frank's diary, and other historical 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 should be 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.

We 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 criticism.

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 towards leadership.

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 seven 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 scientists.

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 surgical procedure.

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 are people, 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% proven solutions".

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 why 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 the victim.

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 them.

Organized religions are prohibited

Organizations should be beneficial to society

Our prehistoric ancestors didn't have any organizations. After they settled into cities, various businesses, churches, sports groups, and other organizations began to form. Some of those organizations turned out to be troublesome, such as the organizations involved with gambling, sex, drugs, and weapons. The people reacted by prohibiting some organizations, and putting others under regulations.

The organizations that have been prohibited or regulated were those that most people disliked. If the public approved of an organization, it was permitted. To rephrase this concept, people do not care what effect an organization has on society. Rather, they judge an organization according to how it affects their emotional feelings.

This Constitution has a different attitude. Specifically, we should not care what people want. We should allow organizations to exist only if they can show evidence that they are beneficial to society. The organized religions, for example, are extremely popular, but this Constitution considers them to be detrimental, and so it prohibits them.

Everybody in Kastron is free to believe whatever they want to believe about the universe, so everybody is free to believe in whichever gods they please, or that Jesus walked on water, or that the universe was created by a Big Bang. They are even permitted to believe in dark matter, quarks, wormholes, time travel, parallel universes, reincarnation, ghosts, clairvoyance, women's intuition, and astrology. Everybody is even permitted to believe that men and women are unisex creatures.

This Constitution does not give any government official, or any other person, any authority to stop somebody from believing something, even if it is something stupid. However, organized religions are not a "belief". Rather, they are "organizations". There is a significant difference between having a "belief" and forming an "organization".

This Constitution gives everybody the freedom to believe whatever they please, but nobody has the freedom to form whatever organization they please. All organizations must justify their existence by showing evidence that they are beneficial to society.

There are a lot of reasons as to why the organized religions are considered detrimental. The remainder of this document will explain the most significant reasons.

Religions suppress curiosity and exploration

Animals and humans have a strong craving to follow their leader, and to be frightened of anything different. These emotions suppress our curiosity and independence. They cause us to be afraid to think new thoughts and to explore the world. They cause us to be obedient and submissive to our leaders.

Our emotions were beneficial in prehistoric times, but today they cause people to become so submissive that they are easily abused and manipulated by crime networks. Today we need leaders who encourage thinking, analyses, curiosity, the verification of facts, and the exploration of the world. 



One reason that organized religions are prohibited is because they suppress our curiosity and independence, and they demand obedience. They encourage humans to behave like sheep.

We need the opposite type of leadership. We need encouragement to explore and analyze.

Our leaders should also encourage us to give job performance reviews to leaders, and to replace the worst performing leaders, rather than be their obedient servants.



Religions oppose freedom of speech

The organized religions do not provide their members with freedom of speech. Their censorship today is not as extreme as it was when Galileo was alive, and it's not as extreme as it is with Twitter, CNN, and YouTube, but this Constitution regards all censorship to be unacceptable. We do not want small amounts of pedophilia, and we should not tolerate small amounts of censorship.

Religions encourage fights

This Constitution wants all organizations to encourage cooperation, teamwork, and friendliness, but the organized religions cause a society to break down into what are essentially arrogant tribes that fight with and insult one another.

The sarcastic remarks and insults from the religious people are as disgusting and unacceptable as the employees of Google who refer to people with different opinions as a "Nazi", and who encourage one another to punch Nazis.

Since each religion believes that they are 100% correct, they do not tolerate competing religions or atheism. The religious people frequently boast about being tolerant and loving, but very few religious people practice what they preach.

The bad attitudes of religions is most noticeable when we compare the organized religions to other organizations. For example, nations regularly get together for the Olympics, and different branches of the military get together for football games, and some of the larger businesses arrange for their employees to get involved with sports activities in which they compete with other businesses. Schools also arrange for activities in which the students of different schools compete in sports and science projects.

Businesses are in competition with each other, and nations are frequently fighting with each other, but those organizations show more of an interest in cooperating with each other than the organized religions. Even the Democrats and Republicans of Congress have an annual baseball game (photo to the right).

How often do the religious leaders arrange for their members to get together with other religions or atheists for recreational events? Has there ever been a baseball game between Buddhists, Jews, Scientologists, or Muslims? Have the different religions ever gotten together for a hike in the forest, a picnic, a dinner, or a discussion about religion?

The organized religions might be the most unfriendly, arrogant, and intolerant of all organizations. They do not encourage their members to be friendly with the other religions, or with atheists. Instead, they encourage their members to be arrogant jerks who believe that every person who is not a member of their particular religion is a misguided idiot, or possessed by the devil. The KKK and Nambla might be more tolerant of differences of opinion.

Some of the religions try to eliminate their competitors by sending missionaries around the world to push their religion on other people. The missionaries are not educating people, or encouraging discussions, or encouraging research. Rather, they are behaving like non-violent armies that are trying to conquer their enemies.

Imagine a world in which every organization was sending missionaries around the neighborhoods to convince us to join their organization. Imagine not only all of the religions doing this, but all of the businesses, nations, sports groups, and social clubs.

Imagine if the KKK, Nambla, the ADL, the SPLC, and other groups were sending missionaries into our neighborhoods to convince us to join their organization. And imagine all of the sports groups also sending missionaries to our homes to convince us to join their particular sport. And imagine that Intel, IBM, Sony, Toyota, and other corporations were also sending missionaries to our homes to convince us to quit our job and apply to their organization.

Also, imagine if the teams that create the South Park cartoon, Jeopardy, Wheel of Fortune, and other TV shows and movies were sending missionaries to our homes to convince us to watch their particular television show or movie. Finally, imagine missionaries from the governments of Uganda, France, and Canada coming to our homes to convince us to leave our nation and apply as an immigrant to their nation.

If every organization was doing that, we would have missionaries coming to our home all throughout the day, every day. Most people would become so furious that they would demand the government to stop it.

Why do we allow the religions to send missionaries into our neighborhood? It is because of a characteristic of animals that I mentioned years ago, which is that we have a tendency to ignore "small" problems and "make lemonade". However, this is stupid, animal behavior. We should not tolerate disgusting behavior simply because only a small percentage of the people are doing it.

This Constitution encourages people to have discussions, look critically at issues, and do research, but nobody has the right to deceive, manipulate, intimidate, or pressure people into believing or doing something. It is especially detrimental to allow organizations to pressure people because we have a natural desire to follow a crowd of people, which gives the organizations an advantage in manipulating people's behavior. The larger an organization is, the easier it is for them to manipulate people, which allows them to grow larger, which in turn makes it easier for them to manipulate even more people.

We have a natural desire to compete with one another, and we should exploit this characteristic for beneficial purposes. Competition should be considered a valuable technique for inspiring us to do a better job, and to look for ways to improve our products, cultural activities, and behavior.

We should not tolerate people or organizations that try to suppress their competitors. We should teach children that they should learn to enjoy and benefit from competition.



Scientists would never resolve their differences if they behaved like religious fanatics.
We cannot have a productive discussion when there is only one point of view. In order for a discussion to have some value, there must be some competing ideas, and each person must be free to explain his ideas. Also, a discussion is worthless if it becomes an argument over right or wrong, or if the people insult one another.

Scientists understand this concept. A scientist does not insist that his particular ideas are perfect, and that everybody else is an idiot. Rather, the scientists look seriously at the opinions of other scientists, and they discuss their ideas. They try to learn from one another, rather than ignore or insult one another.

The organized religions behave in an opposite manner. The organized religions teach their members that their religious beliefs are 100% correct, and that there is no sense in listening to other opinions since all of them are false, and there is no sense in trying to improve their religion since their religion is already perfect.

Religions suppress constructive criticism

This Constitution believes that we must look critically at something in order to improve it. Therefore, everybody is encouraged to create critical analyses of themselves, their opinions, the organizations they belong to, and the culture that they follow. The purpose for this is to encourage everybody to look for ways to improve themselves, the organizations they belong to, their city, and their culture.

However, the organized religions do not encourage constructive criticism. Actually, they do not even tolerate the concept that it is possible to improve their beliefs. Instead, the organized religions promote the arrogant attitude that their particular beliefs are 100% correct. Since it is impossible to improve upon perfection, they regard criticism and suggestions for improvement to be nonsense, insults, or hatred rather than as constructive criticism or as suggestions for improvement. They allow criticism only of the competing religions.

Religions encourage us to solve problems with prayer

The organized religions encourage their members to pray whenever they have problems, rather than encourage them to analyze their problem, discuss the problem, and experiment with solutions.

For example, Lin Wood, a lawyer, has a lot of evidence that Democrats cheated in the 2020 presidential election, and he claimed on Twitter that some government officials and other people are being blackmailed, but he is encouraging people to pray in order to solve these problems. For example, at the end of this tweet, (his Twitter account has since been censored), he wrote:

God will save America. We shall remain free. Keep praying. God bless ALL.

On 20 January 2021, after God failed to keep Trump in office, he encouraged us to continue praying. On 23 January 2021, he posted a message about "WHEN WILL THE ARRESTS START?" to encourage us (or was it to encourage himself?) to continue praying rather than give up. A portion of that message is:

God promises to meet the needs of those who believe in Him and answer their every prayer.

Many people give up on God answering their prayers when the answer does not occur “right away” or “soon enough.” Wait on the Lord. He does not lie. He keeps every promise made to those who believe in Him.

God has to deal with several others and events before it is time to answer your prayer. But He will answer it.

I believe God is dealing with people and events all over the world as part of His plan to bring change to America.


Lin Wood, Sydney Powell, and other people have provided a lot of evidence that there was an extreme amount of cheating in the 2020 election, but we will not stop the cheating by begging God to deal with the criminals.

The organized religions are encouraging adults to behave like children who beg Santa Claus for gifts.

To make the situation worse, some of the people who encourage prayer seem to be Pied Pipers who are leading the gullible sheeple into a "prayer pen" so that they waste their time praying rather than doing something useful.

Praying to stop crime or corruption is destructive because it allows the crime networks to thrive and grow. The organized religions are helping the crime networks by encouraging lots of people to pray rather than do something useful. How many of the people who encourage prayer actually believe that praying is the solution to our problems, and how many are Pied Pipers who are working with the crime networks?

The organized religions ignore extremely irrational concepts

The organized religions pressure their members into obeying the religion without asking questions about it. This reduces the chances that the members notice some incredibly idiotic aspects of their religion, such as what a god is supposed to do when people have conflicting prayers. For example, if two Christians of equal righteousness are trying to get a particular job, spouse, or house, and each of them is praying to God to give it to them, how will God decide which of them should get what they want?

Furthermore, what happens when people of different religions have conflicting prayers?

For example, what happens when the Jews pray to their particular god to help them with their cheating, deception, murder rituals, and pedophilia, and the Christians pray to their particular god to stop that abuse?

Are all of the different gods floating around in heaven together? If so, do they resolve those conflicts through fist fights? Or by playing "Rock, Paper, and Scissors"?

Regardless of how the gods deal with conflicting prayers, it should be obvious that – as of February 2021 – the Christian God is a tremendous disappointment. The Jewish God is beating Him over and over, century after century.

To be fair to the Christian God, perhaps the reason He answers so few prayers is because so many prayers are stupid. Perhaps he is disappointed with the Christian people. For example, in response to the 9/11 attack, millions of Christians prayed for the defeat of the terrorists who live in caves, and who were hiding "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in those caves. Perhaps those millions of idiotic prayers convinced the Christian God to retire, or become an atheist.

Imagine if everybody prayed rather than worked

Imagine if technicians, carpenters, farmers, doctors, and other people believed that prayer was the best solution to problems. For example, imagine that your kitchen sink is clogged and you call a plumber to fix it. He comes over to your house, gets on his knees, and prays to his particular god to unclog your sink. Then he goes to his next customer and prays for them.

Or, imagine that you hire a catering service to provide food for your wedding, and they bring five loaves of bread, two fish, and some water, and then they pray to Jesus to "feed the multitude" and turn the water into wine.


What is the difference between:
a) A plumber praying to a god to unclog a kitchen sink.
b) A caterer praying to Jesus to feed everybody at a wedding.
c) A voter praying to a god to stop the cheating in the elections, the pedophiles, and other crimes and criminals.

The difference is that we would be disgusted and angry with the the plumber and catering service, but many people admire and praise a person who prays to stop wars, corruption, pedophiles, and crime networks.



We set standards for people who want to drive automobiles, fly airplanes, and perform dentistry, and we need to set standards for people who influence our lives and our future. For example, we should demand that any person who wants to be in an influential position in society, such as a voter or a government official, be able to understand the following two concepts:
1) We acquire food, homes, clothing, and other material items by working for them, not by begging some god to give them to us.
2) We solve problems by researching, analyzing, discussing, and experimenting with solutions, not by begging some god to solve our problems for us.



Imagine sending your child to school, but instead of providing your child with useful information, the teachers spend each day organizing the children into "Prayer Groups" that pray for God to educate them.

At the end of each school day, the teachers give the children prayers to take home and practice, rather than homework assignments in math, science, or history.




Or imagine that you are suffering from severe pains in your abdomen, and you go to the hospital. While the hospital staff waits for the doctor to arrive, they get on their knees and pray that you survive.

Soon the doctor arrives, examines you, and discovers that your appendix has ruptured.

He looks through his Bible for the appropriate prayers, and he writes a "Prayer Prescription" for you, sends you home, and then he goes to his next patient.


A doctor, teacher, or plumber who tried to solve problems through prayer would be fired. He would be regarded as unacceptably stupid, ignorant, or mentally ill. However, we admire and praise the government officials, voters, and religious leaders who try to solve problems with prayer.

People with courage do not need to pray

After the 9/11 attack occurred, thousands or millions of Americans reacted by displaying drawings of eagles and boasting that "These Colors Don't Run". However, almost 20 years later, the majority of those people are still hiding from the evidence that the World Trade Center towers were demolished with explosives.


Another crisis is occurring as I write this document; specifically, the evidence that there is a phenomenal amount of cheating in the 2020 elections. Once again we find many Americans reacting to this problem by boasting about their courage, posting images of eagles, and claiming that they will not tolerate the cheating.

Unfortunately, most of the people who boast about their courage are actually very frightened, and they are reacting like a gorilla that is pounding its chest. They are trying to make themselves look courageous and powerful in the hope that the criminals will become intimidated and give up.

The Americans who post those images of eagles should make them more realistic by adding the section below the eagle in the image to the right.



Religions encourage submissive behavior

It is natural for women and children to be passive and submissive, but the adult men should provide leadership to their family. Men should also provide leadership to businesses, government agencies, recreational activities, cities, and nations.

Unfortunately, the organized religions put pressure on the adult men to be as passive and submissive as the girls in the illustration to the right.

When adult men behave like girls, they allow themselves to be dominated by a small number of religious leaders. This would be wonderful if those religious leaders were truly what they claim to be, which is the certified spokesmen for a supreme being, but none of them are.

I would bet that if we could measure mental illness, we would discover that all of the religious leaders would classify as having significant mental disorders. In such a case, the people who follow them are following lunatics rather than people who can provide intelligent leadership.

Some of the people who became religious leaders a few centuries ago may have been honest, respectable people who were simply too ignorant to understand how absurd their religious beliefs were, or, in the case of Gregor Mendel, got involved with a church simply to get financial support. Today, however, everybody has such an extensive education about science that the only people who seem to be interested in becoming religious leaders are the pedophiles, the Zionist Jews who want to infiltrate other religions, and the people who have some type of significant intellectual or emotional disorder.

Religions encourage people to allow abuse

The religions promote the belief that all humans are the wonderful creations of a supreme being, and that the criminals, lunatics, retards, and mentally ill people began life as wonderful people, just like the rest of us, but for some mysterious reason they picked up behavioral problems during their life. The religions believe that a misfit can be converted back to a wonderful person with the appropriate religious education, exorcism, or punishment.

Since the religions believe that everybody is a wonderful person, the religions promote the attitude that we should follow "The Golden Rule". The religions also promote the attitude that we should forgive and forget all of the abuse because abusive people are actually wonderful people, and that it's not their fault that they are abusive.



People who follow The Golden Rule are inadvertently helping criminals.
People who continuously forgive the criminals are also helping criminals.






This Constitution is based on the theory that humans are just a species of monkey, and with that philosophy, exorcisms and punishments are a worthless form of torture, and The Golden Rule is allowing defective people to abuse us.

This Constitution believes that every animal, plant, and human is just a haphazard jumble of genetic characteristics, and that we all have genetic defects, flaws, and limitations. Trying to fix our genetic problems through punishments is a waste of our time and resources, and it creates a miserable social environment for everybody. The defective humans need to be put on restrictions, evicted, or euthanized.

The organized religions are orgies

The communist governments have tried but failed to eliminate the organized religions. Why is it so difficult to stop people from creating and joining organized religions? The reason is because the organized religions appeal to our emotions, as I mentioned here.

The social animals do not want to live alone. They feel safe and comfortable only when they are a member of a group. Also, they have a craving to follow an older male who is strong, courageous, and excels at fighting. Furthermore, the different groups are in competition with each other for food and land, so their natural tendency is to regard other groups as potential enemies.

Humans inherited those crude characteristics. As a result, we have an emotional craving to become a member of a group in which our leader is an old, wise, strong, brave, and intelligent man.

The organized religions make us feel good. We can titillate ourselves for hours every day by telling ourselves that our supreme being loves us, forgives our bad behavior, and will answer our prayers.

We could describe the organized religions as group masturbations, or as orgies in which people stimulate themselves and each other. If this behavior was beneficial, then it would be acceptable, but there are no benefits. Rather, the organized religions encourage destructive attitudes and behavior.

The reason it is difficult to convince a religious person that his beliefs are idiotic and detrimental is because his attraction to religion is emotional, rather than the result of thinking.

This concept might be easier to understand with our sexual feelings. There are no intelligent arguments that we can provide to a homosexual to convince him to become a heterosexual, or to convince a heterosexual to become homosexual. A person's sexual desires are due to his emotions, not his intellect.

Likewise, it is useless to provide an obese person with intelligent reasons for reducing their food consumption because their choice to eat excessively is not due to an intellectual decision. They eat excessively because their mind prefers to follow their emotional feelings rather than their intellect.

Another example of this concept are the Americans who believe that a gun will protect them from crime and government corruption. They will not respond to intelligent reasoning because their decision to have a gun is emotional, not intellectual.

They want a gun for the same reason that a frightened child wants to hold onto a teddy bear. They will not respond to intelligent reasoning for the same reasons that a frightened child cannot be given intelligent reasons to let go of his teddy bear.

When we point out to them that crime and corruption is rampant in the USA even though there are millions of Americans with guns, and that there is much less crime in Japan and Europe even though they don't have many guns, they ignore that rather obvious fact because they are following their emotional feelings, not their intellect.

In regards to religion, our ancestors were so ignorant about science that they could have easily thought about the universe and come to the conclusion that one of the religions is correct. Today, however, the people who are choosing religion over science are doing so because of their emotional attraction to religion, not because they thought about the issue and came to the conclusion that religion is more sensible.

If a person who wants a gun cannot exert enough self-control to think about the issue, or if he does not think very well, then his emotions will dominate his decisions, and he will want a gun no matter what we say to him. Likewise, if a religious person cannot control his emotions, or if his thinking ability is not very good, his emotions will dominate his decisions, and he will be attracted to religion regardless of what we say to him.

Religions cannot learn from their mistakes

We cannot learn from our mistakes if we believe that we are perfect. Since the organized religions insist that their beliefs are 100% perfect, they refuse to believe that they make mistakes, which prevents them from learning from their mistakes.

For example, the religions believe that the solution to starvation is to provide handouts of food. Some churches in India have been doing this on an extremely large scale. For example, one of the churches supposedly provides free meals to 100,000 people every day. (Here is a video of it.)

The end result of their policies is that they are increasing the number of unwanted children, retards, homeless people, uneducated people, and hungry people. That in turn increases the number criminals, drug addicts, suicides, and victims of pedophile networks.

The religious people are increasing the number of people who are suffering, but they insist that their policies are perfect, so they will not look critically at them. They will not experiment with different policies because it is impossible to improve upon perfection.

The organized religions boast that they are beneficial, but what have they improved in our lives? The organized religions have never helped any society understand or reduce its problems of starvation, homelessness, crime, divorce, corruption, or any other social problem.

The members of organized religions serve the organization, not the people

I don't think that the organized religions were intended to improve human life. I suspect that the organized religions first began to evolve when cities became larger than several thousand people. Some of the men who gave lectures on religious issues began to attract dozens of people.

Since men have a craving to be at the top of the hierarchy, they enjoyed their status, and that would cause them to want to increase the number of people who were listening to them. Those men quickly realized that they could use the people to help build them a larger home, or a place to gather for religious lectures. They also realized that they could convince the people to donate money, food, or services to the religious organization.

Regardless of how the organized religions came into existence, all of them share a certain characteristic. Specifically, they create a team, but the purpose of the team is only to listen to lectures, have faith in the religious leader, and donate money to his church. The team is not involved with doing things to improve life for the members, or doing things to improve the city, or doing things to help the children prepare for adulthood. The attitude that the other religions are false or evil causes the members to avoid or fight with people of other religions. Each religion is essentially a group of submissive peasants who are serving a king, or a tribe of prehistoric savages.

The members build giant palaces for their religious leaders, even though some of the members are living in overcrowded and miserable conditions. The members also donate money to their religious leaders, even though their leaders often have much more money than the members. The members also sometimes donate free services to the church. The photos below show a church and a mosque, and they are just two of thousands of expensive structures that people have built for their religions.






Consider which buildings are the most famous, such as Notre-Dame, Taj Mahal, Neuschwanstein Castle, St. Basil's Cathedral, Basilica di Santa Maria del Fiore, Blue Mosque of Sultan Ahmet, Sistine Chapel, and the pyramids of Egypt. Most of the impressive buildings were created for religious leaders or monarchs, not for "the people".

This Constitution wants all organizations in Kastron to serve the people. The people should not be serving the organizations, or pampering a few religious leaders, government officials, or business executives with mansions. We should be serving the human race.

Everybody in Kastron should be working to improve life for everybody in the city. We should put our resources and labor into making Kastron a spectacular city with beautiful buildings, parks, pathways, and recreational activities that all of us can enjoy.

Most people never achieve their full potential

Animals never reach their potential

It might help you to understand why we are attracted to the organized religions if you look at animals. Animals do not want to work, learn, or think. If we provide food to wild animals, they will come back for more rather than work for it. They will start behaving like pet dogs that spend their time taking naps, and expecting us to provide them with food and care.

Some biologists pointed out that monkeys could probably speak a language if they wanted to. The idea that monkeys can talk might seem bizarre, but we can determine that their assumption is sensible simply by observing humans, and realizing that we inherited our behavior from monkeys. We can understand the monkeys by looking at ourselves, and we can understand ourselves by looking at monkeys.

The majority of people do not have much of a desire to work, think, learn, or experiment with changes in their life. For example, children have to be pressured by teachers and parents to learn something in school, and when most children graduate from school, they almost cease learning.

Most people do not want to work, either. They fantasize about becoming so wealthy that they can quit their job and spend their life being pampered by people who provide them with food, homes, electricity, and maid services. The ideal life of most people is similar to that of a pet dog, a medieval king, or the pampered child of wealthy parents.

Why do we fantasize about lounging and being pampered by servants? It is because we are monkeys. Animals do not have any initiative to work, learn, or think. They do something only when they are stimulated by their emotions. When nothing is stimulating them, they do nothing, or they take a nap.

When their hunger emotion is stimulated, it makes them feel uncomfortable, and that causes them to search for food. They do not search for food because they realize that they need food. Rather, they want to stop the unpleasant feeling of hunger, and they want to enjoy the pleasant feelings that they receive from eating.

Likewise, when they spend too much time taking a nap, their muscles stimulate unpleasant emotional feelings, which causes them to get up and do something with their muscles, such as chase after one another. When animals "play" with each other, they are not doing it for "fun". They are doing it because some emotion has been stimulated.

Humans also react to our emotional feelings, but we have a greater desire to do something during our leisure time. We refer to this characteristic as an "initiative". However, we do not have equal levels of this mysterious initiative.

If we could measure everybody's desire to learn, think, or work, we would create a typical bell graph. At one extreme are the people with the least initiative. Those people would be the most likely to spend their leisure time lounging, and fantasizing about being pampered by servants.

At the other extreme are the people with the strongest desire to learn, think, and work. They spend a lot of their leisure time doing something rather than lounging. Instead of fantasizing about being pampered, they fantasize about doing things.

Mental disorders can appear to be initiative

To complicate the concept of "initiative", certain mental disorders can cause people to do things, creating the illusion that those people have a lot of initiative. An example is Michael Phelps, who said that he spent a lot of time training to be a swimmer because of his mental problems.

I suspect that all of the people who become billionaires are similar; namely, that their mental problems pushed them to achieve that goal.

How do we distinguish between a person who has the initiative to do something, and a person who does something because his brain is defective? We do not yet know enough about the human mind to make such a determination, but my suggestion is to notice whether the person is focused on titillating himself with no concern for the long-term effect on his life or the lives of other people.

For example, there is evidence that many, or all, of the billionaires and Hollywood celebrities have become a blackmailed puppet of a crime network. Why would anyone choose to become a puppet of criminals? Most of us would consider that to be a miserable life because of such problems as:
• They give up their freedom.
• They live in fear of being exposed and arrested.
• They must terminate their friendships with "ordinary" people and restrict their associations to criminals.

Why would anyone want to torment themselves by become a member of, or the blackmailed puppet of, a crime network? There seem to be a lot of reasons, such as:
• Some children are born into crime families.
• Some people were tricked into believing that they were joining a group of intelligent and wonderful government officials, scientists, and other important people to create a "New World Order" and improve the world.
• Some people may have been forced to join because of threats of death.

However, I think that the people who voluntarily choose to join a crime network are suffering from a serious mental disorder. They may have a lot of initiative, also, but it is their mental disorder that causes them to regard the titillation of wealth and fame to be worth the suffering of a blackmailed puppet.

I would not be surprised if some of them eventually regret their decision after discovering that the wealth and fame is not eliminating their misery, and that life as a blackmailed puppet is more unpleasant than they had assumed, but after they join the network, are they allowed to get out?

Anyway, the point I want to make is that when we find a person putting a lot of effort into doing something, we cannot assume it is because he is an admirable person with a lot of initiative. He may be mentally disturbed, and he might be struggling to find relief from his misery.

Boredom and low self-esteem can appear to be initiative

Many of the people who travel around the world appear to have an initiative to do something, and they seem to have some curiosity of other cultures, climates, and animal life. However, my casual observations of tourists suggests to me that most of them spend their time in comfortable hotels, restaurants, retail stores, and swimming pools.

Most tourists are just looking for a simple entertainment; they are not interested in exploring or learning about the area. Some of them are obnoxious, disregard the rules of the area, and leave litter everywhere they go. An example are the tourists who get too close to the bison in Yellowstone Park (photo to the right).

The Internet has hundreds of documents that list some of the annoying things that tourists have done around the world. If you are unaware of this issue, do a search on "rude tourists". One example is this.

I don't think many of the people who travel are truly curious about the world. I think the two primary reasons people travel is:
1) Boredom
Traveling is one of the activities that can keep us busy for a long time, but without requiring us to exert much physical or mental effort. This makes it an ideal activity for the retired, elderly, and wealthy people who become bored. It's also useful for young adults who don't know what to do with their life, and want to delay getting a job. Some of them have such a low interest in working that they beg for donations during their travels.

2) Status
The people who are suffering from low self-esteem will be attracted to traveling, especially to "exotic" places, because it gives them the opportunity to become the center of attention when they boast about their traveling.

These people are the reason that some destinations are described as "exotic", or "exciting". To somebody who wants to feel important, a travel destination is "exciting" if it gives him a boost in status. To a person who is not suffering from low self-esteem, all areas, animals, and plants of the earth are equally fascinating.

As mentioned in this previous document, this Constitution does not want the businesses in Kastron to encourage travel. Instead, the city should scatter small and comfortable media rooms around the city. They would have high quality, large video screens. They would allow families and small groups of friends to essentially travel around the earth, underwater, and eventually to the moon and other planets, but without leaving the comfort of our city, and without being bothered by insects, traveling, or weather.

Animals do nothing during their leisure time

When animals have had plenty to eat, and when they don't have any problems to deal with, such as predators, they relax. Some of them take a nap, and some groom themselves or a member of their group, and others chase after each other. They have no initiative to do something during their leisure time.

It is also important to note that wild animals are in much better mental health than humans. Not many wild animals have ADHD, bipolar problems, schizophrenia, or paranoia. As a result, not many animals have trouble sitting still during their leisure time.

By comparison, people are not breeding cats or dogs properly, and this is resulting in the genetic degradation of pets. This is resulting in an increase of pet dogs and cats that have trouble sitting still during their leisure time. Those defective animals spend some of their leisure time doing things, such as running back and forth, eating excessively, or fighting.

To a human observer, the animals that do something during their leisure time would seem to have an initiative, whereas the other animals would appear to be "lazy". However, it would be more accurate to describe the animals that cannot sit still as being analogous to the Hollywood celebrities and billionaires who cannot stop struggling for absurd amounts of wealth and fame, or the obese people who cannot stop eating.

Most people do not have enough initiative for our modern era

The majority of people don't have enough initiative to make them suited to this modern world. For example, most people have so little initiative to learn and think that they almost stop learning and thinking as soon as they get out of school. Furthermore, when they are in school they will learn only what they are pressured to learn, and nothing else. They do the bare minimum necessary.

Most people also have so little initiative to work that they waste a lot of their life on fantasies of becoming so wealthy that they can quit their job. Some of them go so far as to rob banks, kill their spouse for his life insurance policy, or embezzle money from their employer.

It was acceptable for prehistoric people to have a low initiative to learn, think, and work, but people today with a low initiative are going to suffer.



School is a form of torture to people who don't have much of an interest in learning.

Our economy is a "rat race" to people who don't like the modern jobs.






Incidentally, all of the problems that are depicted in the video of the rat race can be solved – if we are willing to experiment with improvements to our culture, rather than whine about the problems. For example:
• The video shows a city that is extremely overcrowded, but we can solve that problem by designing a city for a certain amount of people, and controlling immigration and reproduction to keep the population at that level.
• It shows a city that is full of advertisements, but we can solve that problem by experimenting with an economic system in which the businesses compete to improve society rather than sell items.
• It depicts office workers being treated like robots, but we can solve that problem by experimenting with an economic system in which human life has priority over profit.

We do not have to remain helpless victims of overcrowding, advertisers, crime networks, pollution, graffiti, telemarketers, crime gangs, or dishonest journalists. We can start improving our lives as soon as we find enough people with the courage and initiative to experiment with their culture.


Our prehistoric ancestors did not need much initiative to work. They spent each day hunting for food because of the stimulation from their hunger emotion, and because of the complaints from their wife and children for food.

The situation today is considerably different. People today do not have to work. It is possible for us to survive as a parasite in a variety of different ways, such as staying home with our parents throughout our adult life, or finding a spouse that will do all of the work for us, or getting on a government welfare program, or inheriting lots of money, or starting a charity or think tank and begging for donations.

Furthermore, the work that our prehistoric ancestors did was intellectually simple. For example, the men would occasionally get together to chase after a wild pig or lamb, but the jobs men do today are significantly more complex and advanced. Men today need to learn skills, follow orders from supervisors, coordinate their actions with their coworkers, and follow a lot of laws and rules.

This problem will get worse in the future as machines take over more of the simple jobs. The people in the future will need greater skills, and they will have to follow laws and rules that are more complex. This will result in an even larger percentage of people who do not like, or cannot do, any of the modern jobs.

Every nation already has a problem with people who cannot or will not get a job, follow the laws, learn useful skills, or follow orders. Those people want access to modern houses, foods, video games, cell phones, health care, and other technology, but they cannot or will not contribute to the production or maintenance of any of those things. They want somebody else to do the work. Most of those people would probably have been well adapted to life 10,000 years ago, but they are parasitic misfits in a modern society.

Some of the misfits get involved with crime networks, religions, governments, charities, think tanks, political groups, and other organizations in which they can get away with doing nothing of value. Those misfits have a detrimental effect on morale and attitudes because they encourage other people to join them in their whining about jobs, bosses, and "rat races".

The percentage of misfits who complain about work and fantasize about being pampered is going to increase in every generation if we don't start restricting reproduction to the people who are better suited to this modern world.

The people who complain about school or jobs are not necessarily stupid or incapable of learning a useful skill. Rather, some of them are so emotionally similar to a monkey that they don't want to think, learn, work, or follow schedules.

Only a few people try to reach their maximum physical abilities

Most people were born with a healthy body that is capable of a lot of physical work, but only a small percentage of the population has the initiative to put a lot of effort into developing or maintaining their physical abilities.

Most people prefer to spend their leisure time like the animals. Specifically, lounging, eating, and napping. Most people do something with their muscles only when their muscles become sore from lounging or sitting. As a result, most adults allow their body to become overweight and weak, and some people become quite sickly, also.

Years ago I pointed out that we are not abusing animals when we put them in pens and let them lounge around all day. This is what the animals want to do. We can determine this simply by looking at humans.







Humans don't have much more interest in working, thinking, and learning than a monkey. We prefer to relax all day. When we get tired of lounging and decide to do something, we work at whatever pace we please, but we will consider ourselves to be "hard-working" regardless of how much effort we put into the job. We do not want to become fat, sickly, or weak, but that is a side effect of doing what we want to do.

We need an incentive to get some exercise and do something

Humans were designed to be under constant pressure by nature. We were not designed to be pampered. This characteristic is the reason that I have suggested in other documents that we design our culture so that we are encouraged to get out of our home and do something. We need some pressure to get some exercise, and to meet other people. If we are allowed to do whatever we please, we behave like pet dogs.

My proposal to design Kastron as clusters of tall buildings surrounded by parks, and to make the homes small, and not provide them with kitchens or dining rooms, is to inspire people to get out of their home during their leisure time, and to get out of the office or factory during their lunch time, and enjoy the city and the people.

We cannot force people to get exercise or socialize, but we can encourage such activities by designing a city that is beautiful, easy to travel around, and has so many social and recreational activities that we are inspired to leave our home and do something.

Furthermore, by restricting immigration and evicting troublemakers, we can create a city in which we enjoy one another, rather than fear one another, and this will also give us more of an incentive to get out of our home and do something, and allow children do things on their own.

Likewise, my proposal to arrange for courtship activities and prohibit flirting elsewhere is to put pressure on the men and women to put some effort into thinking about their marriage. Without pressure, we are likely to follow our emotional cravings, which is to impress one another and not put much thought into compatibility.

Only a few people try to reach their maximum mental abilities

The majority of people appear to be stupid and uneducated, but it is an illusion. They have such a low initiative to think, learn, discuss issues, look critically at themselves, and experiment with new activities that they never reach their intellectual potential.

For example, one of my aunts insisted to me that Donald Trump was elected in 2016 because some Russians posted some advertisements on Facebook. She picked up that belief from the television journalists, and even though she is above-average in intelligence and education, she believes that idiotic theory simply because she has no interest in thinking about it. She prefers to behave like a stupid animal that follows the other animals.

If we could turn a knob on her brain to increase her desire to think and explore, she would quickly realize that an election will not be altered by a few advertisements that only a tiny percentage of voters have seen.

Or, if the government required all voters to attend a school course in which they had to write a report about the Russian collusion issue, and then discuss their analysis to the class, my aunt and other people would be under pressure to think about the issue, and some of those people would certainly come to the conclusion that the Russian collusion theory is idiotic. However, the voters are not under any pressure to think about or discuss any issue, so most of them don't. Instead, they mimic the people that they admire and trust, such as the television journalists.

Most people are more intelligent and talented than they appear, but most people never reach their potential because they don't want to. Most people prefer to spend their leisure time like an animal; namely, lounging, taking naps, and entertaining themselves with food, sex, babies, status, and shopping.

One of the reasons free enterprise is much more productive than Marxism is because free enterprise puts us under pressure to work. We don't want to work, but we do a much better job when we are under pressure to do so. However, the pressure of a free enterprise system is to make profit, so this Constitution will change that to a competition to improve life in the city. This will allow us to get the benefits of competition, namely, putting us under pressure to work, while at the same time putting us into a competition that is truly beneficial to us.

How many animals are capable of speaking?

Many animals have the ability to make different noises for different situations. Prairie dogs for example, make a few different noises for different types of predators and situations. We could describe their noises as a simplistic language that has a very small vocabulary. Monkeys also make noises, so we could describe them as having a simplistic language with a few words.

Animals make noises only when they are emotionally stimulated. For example, a Prairie dog will make the noise that they associate with a hawk when they see a hawk, but as soon as the hawk has flown by, they return to remaining silent. They do not have the initiative to experiment with language.

If we could turn a knob to increase the initiative of animals, we would discover that they are physically and mentally much more talented than they appear to be. For example, if some of the Prairie dogs, wolves, or tigers developed an initiative to become an athlete, they would occasionally practice some athletic event. This would result in them being able to do athletic events that none of the other animals can do, and which none of us would have believed was possible. We might discover that a Prairie dog is capable of doing a double backflip.

Likewise, if the animals had more of an initiative to think, some of them might have developed a simple language, or discover arithmetic. I would not be surprised if gorillas have the intellectual ability and finger dexterity to weave baskets.

However, animals do not have much of an initiative to do anything. As a result, the animals never achieve the full potential of their body or mind.

By understanding animals, we can understand humans, and vice versa. The majority of people appear to be a group of stupid, sheeplike creatures who don't care that they are being abused by crime networks or pedophiles, but if we could analyze their DNA, we would discover that they actually have a lot more intelligence and talent.

Why don’t we work together for benefit of all of people?

Why are so many people fighting over material items? Why are so many husbands and wives arguing with each other, and sometimes killing each other? Why are so many people having trouble controlling their consumption of food or alcohol? Why are so many people lying to us, deceiving us, and cheating us?

Why don't we work together for the benefit of all people? Why don't we share our beautiful world with one another? Why don't we treat one other as friends? Why do the mainland Chinese want to fight with and steal from the Taiwanese rather than cooperate with them? Why do hordes of migrants want to get into the USA and Europe rather than improve their own nation? Those questions are similar to:


Why do the neighborhood dogs and cats fight with each other instead of treating one another as friends? Why does a wild deer prefer handouts of food rather than working for his food? Why do monkeys spend their leisure time lounging rather than making tools, exploring the world, or experimenting with language?



How are those dogs different from the people who cheat and kill for material wealth?

How is that deer different from the people who want to become wealthy and hire servants?

How are those monkeys different from the people who lounge for hours in front of a television?



The answer to these questions is: our genetic characteristics evolved for a vicious, competitive battle for life, so our behavior is dominated by fighting, arrogance, selfishness, suspicion, paranoia, and other qualities that interfere with cooperation, friendliness, team work, constructive criticism, honesty, and exploration.

Most adults have the intelligence necessary to realize that we benefit much more when we work together for the benefit of all people. Even stupid people can understand that a team can accomplish a lot more than selfish individuals who cheat one another. So why don't we work together? Why don't we follow the policy that makes the most intellectual sense? Why do so many people choose to fight, cheat, steal, pout, and hate?

Some people choose the idiotic policy because they don't want to think, and other people realize that we should work together but don't have enough self-control to ignore their emotional cravings and do what is the most intellectually sensible.

The end result of not thinking, and not having much self-control, is that most people follow their emotions, just like an animal. They cannot resist their craving to steal items, grab at women, and get into fights over status.

To add complexity to this issue, the human race is degrading genetically, and this is causing every generation to have more intellectual and emotional defects, thereby resulting in an increase in abnormal emotional cravings and irrational thoughts. The mentally defective people cannot be expected to behave in a sensible manner.

The crime, corruption, inefficiency, loneliness, divorce, pedophilia, and other problems are not the result of poverty, ignorance, the devil, sexism, or racism. We cannot reduce these problems by giving handouts to poor people, putting people through rehabilitation programs, or by punishing people. These problems are due to people who choose to behave in dishonest, destructive, selfish, and irrational manners. The only solution to this problem is to restrict reproduction so that each generation has a higher quality mind.

There is no way to make a person develop an interest in learning, thinking, working in teams, being honest, or sharing material wealth with other people. For example, most of us have spent many years in school, and we experienced lots of rewards and punishments from our teachers, parents, and other students. However, none of those years of schooling made us want to learn, think, explore, or experiment. The small minority of people who have an above-average desire to learn were born with that characteristic; the schools did not give it to them.

To complicate the issue, our environment has an effect on our attitudes. For example, if a person with a strong initiative to think and learn is sent to a religious school, he might become a misfit as a result of asking questions about religion. He might even complain that the teachers are idiots for believing that Jesus could walk on water. The teachers might regard him as a bad student, or as a troublemaker, and he might be punished by the teachers because of his bad attitude. However, even though he dislikes the school, and even though he is considered to be a bad student, the school has no effect on his brain. He will continue to have a desire to learn and think.

Sending a child who has a strong desire to learn and think to a religious school will not transform him into a sheep-like, religious fanatic who has no desire to think. Instead, he will be a misfit or troublemaker in that school.

Likewise, the people who have a strong initiative to work were born with that desire. They did not get that desire from their social environment. Conversely, the people who do not like to work, be a team member, or follow schedules, cannot be made to enjoy such things.

Our environment can influence whether we develop our talents, but it cannot give us something that we were not genetically designed with. And our environment cannot remove something that we were genetically designed with.

For example, if a person has an above-average initiative to work, but if he gets into a job that he is not well suited to, or if he works with people he does not like, then he will not like that particular job, but his desire to work will remain the same. Putting him into a unpleasant job will not cause his brain to rewire itself and remove his desire to work.

The point of all this is that we must learn to accept people for what they are. We have to stop trying to control and change people. We have to acknowledge that many people today simply do not have the emotional characteristics to fit into this modern era. They become criminals, parasites, or misfits that cause trouble for themselves and other people.

We cannot make people want to learn, think, work, be responsible, or be honest. Punishments and rehabilitation programs cannot fix their problems. Rather, it torments them, which can make the situation even worse.

The only way we can help people is to provide them with information about their problems. We can also put people under pressure to learn, think, and do things. However, if the information has no effect on them, and especially if they rebel against the pressure, we must give up and accept them for what they are. We cannot force somebody to change to what we want them to be.

If a person wants to spend his time lounging and being pampered by servants, that is what he is going to fantasize about regardless of what we do to change his attitude. We can provide those people with information about how they will benefit by developing a better attitude, but if they have no desire to experiment with changes to their life, then they will continue fantasizing about being pampered by servants.

Likewise, a man who grabs at women on crowded trains, or pesters women at the office, retail stores, beaches, or parks, is going to continue pestering women unless he wants to change, and unless he has the self-control to change. And a person who cannot refrain from stealing items is going to continue having that problem unless he has the desire and ability to change.

This concept also applies to people who are involved with intellectual activities. For example, a scientist who is so arrogant or envious that he has trouble looking critically at his theories or favorably at competing theories will have trouble learning from his mistakes and from the successes of other people, thereby preventing him from reaching his potential. There is nothing we can do to reduce his arrogance or envy.

Likewise, a scientist who is frightened of the unknown will have a tendency to resist or ignore all of the "radical" ideas, thereby preventing him from reaching his full intellectual potential. There is nothing we can do to increase his courage to explore the world.


An organization must be beneficial

Religion must be a personal belief

This Constitution allows people to believe whatever they please. For example, it is acceptable for a person to believe that the dinosaurs went extinct because of a meteor, and it is just as acceptable for somebody else to believe that the dinosaurs went extinct because Noah let the large dinosaurs drown.

It is also acceptable for a person to believe in some type of religion as a way of helping them deal with problems. For example, some people remind themselves of biblical passages, such as Galatians 6:14, in order to control their arrogance. Although it would be best if everybody could cope with modern life without religion, drugs, or other aids, that use of religion does not hurt other people.

However, this Constitution does not give anybody the freedom or authority to push his opinions on other people, ridicule other people's opinions, slander other people's opinions, or form organizations that try to control people's opinions. Nobody has the right to suppress curiosity, critical analyses, discussions, or exploration. People are encouraged to give critical analyses of one another's opinions, but nobody has the right to insult anybody.

As mentioned in a previous section, the organized religions are unacceptable because they suppress freedom of speech, discussions, and exploration. They are as unacceptable as:
• A group of scientists who create a Big Bang organization, a Dark Matter organization, or a Wormhole organization, and who then suppress criticism and alternative theories, and who send missionaries around the world to pressure other people into joining them.

• A group of vegetarians who create an organization that suppresses criticism and alternative theories, and sends missionaries around the world to pressure other people to join them.

Organizations must give us what we need, not what we want

An organization is not allowed to exist simply because some people enjoy it. Every organization must show that it has a benefit to society that outweighs its disadvantages. The organized religions are popular because they appeal to our emotions, but they are destructive to society rather than beneficial.

This Constitution requires all organizations to show evidence that they are beneficial to society. It does not matter whether people like or want the organization. Every organization must encourage productive attitudes and behavior. No organization is allowed to suppress their competitors, interfere with free speech, dampen our curiosity about the world, or try to control the thoughts of other people.

There are a lot of organizations in the world today that would be prohibited with this Constitution. For example, the ADL, the political groups, the think tanks, and the SPLC don't produce any products or services but instead try to manipulate our opinions and culture.

It is acceptable for an organization to do research on human behavior or culture, but the ADL and the other groups are not doing research. An organization that does research will provide us with detailed descriptions of where their data comes from, and they will provide us with evidence to back up their theories. They will also allow other scientists to verify their data and their conclusions.

However, the ADL and the other groups are not providing us with data or supporting evidence. Even more important, they try to stop us from verifying their data and conclusions. They want to arrest people who investigate the data for "Denial". That is not the behavior of a scientist who is doing research. That is the behavior of a criminal who is trying to eliminate his critics.

If the ADL was truly a group of intelligent, honest people, they would encourage people to verify their data and conclusions about the Holocaust, Anne Frank's diary, the attack on the USS Liberty, and other events.

No issue should be controversial or forbidden

There are certain issues that are referred to as "controversial". A controversial issue is an issue in which a significant percentage of the population will not tolerate conflicting opinions about, or criticism of. The intolerant people react with anger, hatred, crying, pouting, tantrums, and sometimes violence. Their unpleasant reaction causes people to become afraid to discuss the issues in public. For example, most people are afraid to discuss such issues as:
• Who created God?
• Which religion is most accurate?
• Are the Jews lying about the Holocaust?
• Were the World Trade Center towers demolished with explosives?

When people are afraid to discuss issues, they inhibit progress on those issues. We cannot learn about something if we are afraid to analyze it and discuss it.

This Constitution wants the government to create a social environment in which there is no such thing as a controversial or forbidden issue. Everybody should be free to discuss any issue they please. Nobody should be afraid of being ridiculed, arrested, or insulted for asking a question or discussing an issue.

In order to allow people to feel safe to discuss issues, this Constitution gives the quality control department the authority to pass judgment on whether any of the citizens or organizations, including the government officials, are trying to suppress, intimidate, or manipulate conversations or critics. The goal of the quality control department is to maintain a social environment in which everybody feels safe to discuss whatever they please.

This Constitution wants everybody's curiosity to be stimulated and encouraged, not suppressed. The people who interfere with free speech and curiosity should be considered detrimental to society, and they should to be put on restrictions or evicted. We should not tolerate the censorship of opinions or the suppression of critics that we see coming from the executives of Google, Twitter, the ADL, and CNN.

This Constitution promotes the attitude that most of our information belongs somewhere in the middle of the fact and fiction spectrum, and, aside from some math facts, not much of our knowledge can be considered 100% factual. Therefore, nobody should claim that his opinions are factual. Most of our knowledge should be regarded as incomplete and inaccurate. Everybody should be encouraged to investigate and look critically at any issue they please, and try to learn more about it.

There is no way to distinguish between mistakes and crimes

The issue of free speech is complex because there is no way for us to determine when somebody is making a mistake, and when they are trying to manipulate or deceive us with false information. For example, I suspect that most of the people who are promoting the "flat earth" theory are doing so in an attempt to manipulate us. They should be investigated, and our legal system should pass judgment on whether they truly believe the earth is flat, or whether they are trying to manipulate us, in which case they should be arrested.

In order to create a society that provides us with free speech, and which protects us from crime, we need to restrict the leaders and security personnel to the people who show an excellent ability to differentiate between mistakes and crimes.

A scientist who deliberately manipulates data in order to create a certain conclusion is not "expressing his opinion" or making a "mistake". Rather, he is trying to manipulate other people's opinion about the issue, so he should be considered guilty of a crime.

Likewise, the people who investigated the collapse of the World Trade Center towers and have concluded that miniature hydrogen bombs brought the buildings down should be investigated because I suspect that they are trying to manipulate us, in which case they are not "expressing an opinion" or "making a mistake". Rather, they should be arrested for committing a crime.

Another example of this concept is that the Jews who demand the arrest of "Holocaust Deniers" should not be considered as "expressing their opinions" on the issue, or trying to protect the public from false information. Rather, those Jews should be considered as trying to suppress investigations of history.

There is no valid reason to suppress an investigation of any historical event. The only people who have an interest in suppressing history are people who want to hide the truth from us. This Constitution gives everybody the right to know the truth about history. People who try to censor or suppress history are regarded as criminals who are interfering with our understanding of the human race.

A person who hides historical events from us should be considered as unacceptable as a zoologist who hides information about a particular animal, thereby giving everybody an incorrect understanding of the animal.

We must set high standards for a legal system

We must distinguish between a belief and an accusation

To complicate the issue of free speech, we must distinguish between when a person is "expressing an opinion" and when he is "slandering" somebody, or "making a false accusation," or "deceiving" people.

I have mentioned this issue before, but I want to summarize it here. Specifically, when somebody accuses us of being anti-science, an anti-Semite, or a sexist, we must make a distinction between when they are truly expressing an opinion and when they are trying to hurt the person, in which case they are to be considered a criminal who is committing slander, false accusations, or deception.

Modern life is too complex for some people

When it occurred to me in January 2002 that the World Trade Center towers were demolished with explosives, I assumed that all I had to do was notify people of the evidence, and most of them – including most of the police, military personnel, teachers, scientists, and government officials – would react by passing the information around in order to expose the crime, and demanding that the crime be investigated, and the criminals be arrested.

Unfortunately, my assumption turned out to be extremely inaccurate. I was especially surprised to discover that the police did not seem to care, nor did any of the supposedly intelligent and educated people, such as college professors, government officials, scientists, and engineers.

As of January 2021, hundreds of millions of people around the world have seen the evidence, but most of them ignore it. Although some of them are ignoring it because they are working with the crime network, either voluntarily or because of blackmail, there are millions of other people who ignore the information simply because they prefer to behave like an animal; specifically, they want to titillate themselves with food, sex, babies, material items, trophies, pornography, and awards. They don't want to deal with the complex problems of a modern society.

An organization is only as good as its members can make it. An organization can tolerate a certain number of people who behave like animals, but in order for a modern society to be efficient and pleasant, we must raise standards for the citizens, and especially for the people in influential positions. Three of the behavioral characteristics that are acceptable to animals but detrimental to a modern society are:

• Ignoring accusations and evidence of pedophilia, cheating in the election, explosives in the World Trade Center towers, and other types of crime and corruption. These people are as detrimental as sailors who ignore leaks in the wall of a submarine.

• Not caring whether we contribute something of value to society, such as the people who want to avoid work, or the artists who will only do the work that they enjoy. These people are a burden on society because they expect us to pamper them with material wealth, food, and other services, while they contribute little or nothing.

• Inability to understand and/or deal with deception, thereby allowing themselves to be fooled over and over by salesmen, political candidates, and crime networks. These people inadvertently support the criminals.

We need to keep people with those behavioral characteristics to a minimum. It is especially important for us to restrict the influential positions to people who can demonstrate an ability to provide us with intelligent analyses to the issues we face today. For example, here are two issues that we should expect our leaders – including voters – to provide intelligent analyses of:

1) How honest is Wikipedia?
Is Richard Nieva, the journalist who wrote this article, correct that the Wikipedia is a "refuge from Big Tech's misinformation", and a "beacon of reliability". And is Professor Cheshire correct that the Wikipedia is "combating disinformation"?

My opinion is that Wikipedia is lying about a lot of issues, such as the 9/11 attack, the world wars, Anne Frank's diary, and the Holocaust, and they are suppressing and censoring a lot of people, such as myself. If I had the authority, I would investigate the authors of the Wikipedia, Richard Nieva, and Professor Cheshire, and arrest the people who seem to be deliberately creating false information.

2) Did we benefit from the censorship?
This news article tells us that the research firm Zignal Labs discovered that "online misinformation about election fraud" dropped 73% after President Trump and other people were censored. The journalists also tell us that Kate Starbird, who they describe as a "disinformation researcher at the University of Washington" verifies that the censorship "will likely significantly reduce the amount of online misinformation in the near term".

Are Zignal Labs and Kate Starbird correct that the censorship protected us from misinformation?

My suspicion is that they were censoring the honest information about the cheating, not the misinformation, and that Zignal Labs, Kate Starbird, and those journalists should be investigated to determine whether they have actually been fooled into believing that the censorship was beneficial, or whether they should be arrested.

The people who cannot make wise decisions about the honesty of Wikipedia or Zignal Labs should not be allowed to vote or get into any influential positions. We should restrict the influential positions to people who show an above-average ability to identify deception, cheating, and lies.

We must distinguish between protection and abuse

One of the complexities of modern life is determining whether a person is a friend or an enemy. I have given some examples of this dilemma in other documents. For example, when the ADL or SPLC advocates the arrest, firing, or censorship of Holocaust deniers, racists, or anti-Semites, are they trying to protect us? Or are they trying to deceive, manipulate, and exploit us?

The people who cannot make wise decisions about these issues are as helpless as animals that are easily lured into traps. They will be manipulated by criminals, but they will be manipulated voluntarily. Since they will not realize that they are manipulated, they will defend the people who are abusing them.

They should not be allowed to vote, or have any influential positions of society, because they are easily fooled into helping their enemies.

Censorship is not a solution to any problem

There are a few remarks on the Internet that most people would allow to be censored, such as those that advocate violence. However, there is no benefit to censoring even the most senseless demands of or calls for violence. As I have pointed out many times, the proper reaction to problems is to investigate the issue, try to figure out what is causing the problem, and then experiment with methods to reduce the problem in the future.

We will not improve our lives or solve any problem simply by deleting messages that encourage violence. The people who posted the messages will still be here, living among us. They may continue to post angry messages, in which case we will have to continue to censor them, resulting in the ridiculous situation in which we spend the rest of our lives censoring them. Or they might become so angry that they get involved with violence.

If we had proper leadership, we would investigate why people are posting the angry messages. I suspect that we would discover that most of the people posting angry messages are one of two groups:

1) Criminals
I think that some criminals are pretending to be Trump supporters and posting angry remarks in order to fool the public into believing that the Trump supporters are violent maniacs, thereby providing justification to censor the Trump supporters. Therefore, if we allow the censorship of the angry remarks, we would not solve any problem. Rather, we would be foolishly allowing the criminals to censor us. We would give the criminals what they are trying to trick us into giving them.

2) Honest citizens who are angry
Some of the angry messages are probably coming from honest people who are simply frustrated and angry with the corruption. Censoring those people will not solve any problem. Actually, censoring them is likely to cause them and other people to become more angry and frustrated.

When citizens demand the arrest or execution of government officials, journalists, or other people, it is idiotic to censor them. We should instead investigate their complaints to determine whether they are correct about the corruption. If they are incorrect, we should explain the reasons so that they can relax, and if we discover that they are correct, then we should deal with the corruption.

These concepts are similar to what I've mentioned in other documents about feminism. Men react to the complaints of feminists in different ways, such as:
• Pandering to the women.
• Becoming angry at the women.
• Ignoring their complaints.
• Trying to censor their complaints.

None of those reactions are sensible. The most sensible reaction to angry women is to investigate why they are angry. I think that an investigation of the angry women would show us that most women belong in the same two categories that I mentioned in the previous paragraphs. Specifically:

1) Criminals
I think that some of the angry feminists are actually Zionist Jews who are trying to instigate fights between men and women.

2) Women who are frustrated with life
I think that a lot of the women are frustrated with the modern world. Life has changed for both men and women during the past few thousand years, but most people are not able to cope with the changes very well. This is causing a lot of loneliness, frustration, arguments, disappointment, and embarrassment. Women and children have a tendency to react to problems by whining, rather than looking for ways to solve the problem. The men should react to whiny women and children by trying to figure out what is causing them trouble.

We are not going to help the women by pandering to the feminists, or by ignoring or censoring them. We need to investigate why men and women are having so many problems today, and we need to experiment with changes to our culture to reduce the problems.

Likewise, when children complain about being abused at daycare centers, Hollywood, schools, and churches, it is idiotic to ignore or censor them. We should investigate their complaints.

History also provides us with examples of how stupid it is for government officials to ignore or censor the complaints of health problems by employees. For example, businesses tried to censor the complaints about tetraethyl lead and radium.

To summarize, we should not tolerate people who want to censor or suppress us. Censorship is not leadership. Censorship is a trick to eliminate competitors and critics. The proper solution to a problem is to investigate the cause of the problem.

We must watch out for the Two Minute Hate sessions

In Orwell's 1984, the government made the public spend two minutes every day listening to some particular message. There was also a hate week during which they had to listen to even more propaganda.

Unfortunately, not many people realize that we are being treated in a very similar manner. For example, when the 9/11 attack occurred, most of the journalists and many government officials, college professors, and other "important" people told us that we had been attacked by a few Arabs who live in caves. The journalists repeated that message all throughout the day, and they did so day after day, week after week.

In 2001, most of us trusted the journalists, government officials, college professors, and other important people so we did not wonder why they were repeating the same information over and over. Today, however, some of us realize that we were being treated similar to the public in Orwell's 1984.

In Orwell's story, the people were pressured to regularly attend "hate speeches", during which they would listen to deceptive news reports. However, the people trusted the news reports, and this caused them to become hysterically angry at some imaginary enemies.

Immediately after the 9/11 attack, most of the Americans were behaving exactly the same, except that they were doing it voluntarily as a result of regularly watching deceptive television news reports.

Tens of millions of American citizens became so angry at those imaginary terrorists that they supported a war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

When the French put up some resistance to the wars, many Americans became angry at the French, also, and they tried to get revenge on the French through such idiotic methods as referring to "French fries" as "Freedom Fries".

Although most of us were fooled by the 9/11 attack because we were so trusting of our authorities, some of us eventually realized that we had been lied to, and that realization made it more difficult for us to be fooled again. However, most people did not learn anything from the 9/11 attack. Instead, they continued to trust the journalists, government officials, scientists, business executives, and other people who lied about the 9/11 attack. The end result is that they were manipulated over and over, and they are still being manipulated.

The hatred that millions of people in various nations have for "Orange Man" should be used as proof that the majority of people cannot deal with the complexities of this modern world. They are very easily manipulated by criminals.

Most people have the intelligence necessary to understand that they are being lied to, but they resist thinking, looking critically at themselves and their authorities, and considering the possibility that other people have more intelligent opinions.

As a result of their crude mental characteristics, they have trouble learning from their mistakes, and learning from other people. This allows the criminals to fool them over and over, and with the same tricks.

The fact that millions of people believe lies about the 9/11 attack, the world wars, Anne Frank's diary, and the Apollo moon landing should be used as proof that democracies are hopeless. Most people are so easily manipulated by criminals that they should not be allowed to vote or have any influential position.

None of us would allow a child to determine our future, so why should we allow adults to determine our future when they are as helpless as a child?

How obvious does the abuse have to be?



Would exact imitations of posters from the movie 1984 make the deception obvious enough for people to figure out that they are being lied to?
How extreme would the deception have to be before the majority of people realized that they were being deceived, abused, and cheated?

For example, what would happen if Twitter, the ADL, Google, the FBI, and Facebook put posters around the nation that were identical to those of Orwell's 1984, such as the poster to the right?

How many people would realize that those posters were attempts to instigate hatred rather than protect us from "enemies"? How many would notice that there is no supporting evidence to justify accusing those people of being "enemies"?

Furthermore, of the people who notice the deception, how many of them would care enough to expose and stop the abuse? And how many would react by praying?

We must set high standards for our legal system

The modern world is so complex that we need a legal system to resolve disputes between people. An example that is occurring right now, January 2021, is the dispute over whether there was cheating during the 2020 presidential elections. Sidney Powell and some other lawyers have filed lawsuits in which they presented evidence of the cheating, but the courts responded by dismissing their evidence as nonsense, and insisting that the elections were fair.

The journalists have also repeatedly insisted that the 2020 election was honest, and that all of the accusations of cheating have been "debunked". They describe the evidence of cheating as being disinformation, false accusations, and as desperate attempts by Trump to remain in office.

It is not easy to determine whether a piece of information is valid evidence of a crime. A legal system has to determine whether something is valid evidence by analyzing it and passing judgment on it. Therefore, the conclusions of a legal system will only be as intelligent and honest as the people involved with the decisions.

A legal system is just an organization of people, so the decisions that the legal system makes depend entirely upon the minds of the people in it. An obvious example of this concept is that if we allow a group of pedophiles to dominate the legal system, then the legal system is not likely to investigate accusations of pedophilia, at least not among themselves.

In a democracy, the legal system is only as useful as the voters can make it. Unfortunately, most voters do not have the desire to analyze their legal system, or demand the replacement of the officials who are showing signs of incompetence or corruption. Most Americans did not even consider Ruth Ginsburg to be too decrepit from old age to be a Supreme Court judge.

The end result of allowing the majority of people to control the US government is that we have a legal system that is so corrupt that it:

1) Dismisses the evidence of cheating in the 2020 election rather than investigate it, thereby allowing Dominion Voting Systems to sue Sidney Powell for $1.3 billion for accusing them of being involved with the cheating, and sue Rudy Giuliani, also, for the same amount.

2) Allows Twitter and other businesses to violate our freedom of speech.

3) Dismisses evidence that journalists are lying. One of the latest accusations in February 2021 is coming from James O'Keefe who has evidence that the New York Times is lying about a witness to the cheating in the elections.

4) Allows people to make slanderous and idiotic accusations about us, such as "election deniers", and this article accuses Trump of "democracy denial".

How many people can see the corruption?

It is possible that the public tolerates a lot of corruption because a lot of the people cannot see the corruption. This could be the result of several problems, such as:
• They have so little interest in society that they don't pay much attention to what is going on in our government.
• They are too stupid or ignorant to understand the complex crimes that are occurring.
• They have so little desire to think that the evidence and accusations of corruption pass through their mind without being processed.

A person who wants to vote should demonstrate a desire and ability to understand the problems that we suffer from today. For a few more examples of what a voter should be aware of and be capable of saying something intelligent about:

   • How many people realize that "match fixing" applies to leadership?

Although each of us has different athletic abilities, our athletic abilities do not change much from one day to the next, except, of course, when we are injured or sick. As a result, we can depend upon a person to have a particular athletic performance on a regular basis. For example, an athlete who is among the best in a particular field will always tend to be among the best.

Most people can understand this concept, and this allows them to make intelligent decisions about when an athlete is trying to deceive us about his abilities. For example, when an athlete is not performing as well as he usually does, some people suspect that he is faking the lower level of performance in order to cause his team to lose. This type of deception has happened so often that we have several expressions for it, such as "match fixing" and "sports fixing".

This deception occurs with intellectual competitions, also, but how many people can understand it? For example, journalists, government officials, FBI agents, and other people claim to be ignorant about the evidence that the World Trade Center towers were demolished with explosives. Are they really that naive? Or are they faking ignorance and/or stupidity?

An even more complex example of this deception is the judges in our legal system that create confusing documents. When they want to deceive us about a court case, they can create a confusing document. Most people are so accustomed to being overwhelmed with modern technology that they make the mistake of assuming that a legal document is confusing because they lack the intelligence and/or education to understand it, or because they don't have the time to understand it. This causes them to assume the document is valid, thereby allowing the judge to get away with a fraudulent and deceptive conclusion.

For example, in 2018 a group of people filed a lawsuit against Katie Couric for editing a video interview in which she asked the people a question, and then inserted nine seconds of silence before they answered, in an attempt to create the impression that they had to spend nine seconds thinking about the question. The judges responded with this 13 page document about the case. On page 11 the judges wrote:
To be sure, the film gives the impression that Couric’s final question stumped the panelists.

On the last page the judges wrote:
Although we agree that the filmmakers’ editing choices were questionable, the edited footage simply does not rise to the level of defamation under Virginia law.

The judges admitted that the journalists did "questionable" editing that resulted in creating a false impression, but the judges did not consider the editing to be illegal because it "simply does not rise to the level" necessary to be regarded as a crime.

How do we determine whether an event is serious enough to be considered a "crime"? Imagine living in a society in which all of the journalists are routinely inserting silence in the interviews of people that they don't like. For example, imagine they interview you and ask you your name, and then they insert nine seconds of silence before you answer. And then they ask what you do for a living, and they insert another nine seconds of silence. Imagine that when you complain to the courts that the editing was a deliberate attempt to give you a bad image, the judges respond:
"Yes, to be sure, the film gives the impression that you are neurotic, and it is indeed questionable editing, but the edited footage simply does not rise to the level of a crime. Case dismissed."

Would you describe a court that supports "questionable" editing as providing us with intelligent guidance and ensuring that our news reports and interviews are honest?

It's also interesting to consider how the judges, lawyers, executives of Twitter, and journalists would react if you or I edited interviews of them in a similar manner. Would they allow us to treat them in the manner that they treat us? Would they tolerate our questionable editing?

If the voters cannot make wise decisions about whether the courts are providing us with intelligent guidance, then our society will eventually be dominated by criminals.

I think that the main reason our courts are getting away with abusing us is because they create confusing documents to disguise their abuse. For example, I think the document that the judges created for the Katie Couric case is confusing, and I don't think it is because I lack a legal education. I think the judges deliberately wrote it to be confusing in order to prevent people from noticing that they are justifying criminal behavior.

I would describe the courts as doing the intellectual equivalent of "sports fixing". Specifically, they pretend to be incapable of expressing their ideas clearly. It is similar to faking stupidity or ignorance, except they create a confusing document in order to hide their crimes.

Although no society yet has set high standards for government officials, judges, business executives, professors, journalists, or other people in influential positions, most of them are above-average in intelligence and education. Most of them are capable of expressing their opinions in an understandable manner.

We expect the performance of the top athletes to always be excellent, and we should expect people in leadership positions to always provide us with intelligent documents. We should watch out for the intellectual equivalent of "sports fixing", in which a journalist, government official, business executive, or other leader pretends to be incapable of expressing himself clearly, or pretends to be ignorant of some commonly known information.

If we look through all of the documents that a particular judge or journalist has created during his life, we will discover that they are capable of expressing themselves clearly when they want to. Therefore, when they create a confusing document, we should not assume that it is confusing because we are too stupid or uneducated to understand it. We should instead consider the possibility that they are analogous to an athlete who is pretending to have temporarily lost his talent.

We must raise standards for people in influential positions and demand that they routinely provide us with intelligent guidance and analyses. We should not tolerate documents from them that are ignorant, idiotic, or confusing.

When somebody in a leadership position produces a confusing or idiotic document, we should identify the confusing sections and give him the chance to edit his documents, but if his edited versions are no better, we should consider one of two possibilities:

1) Incompetence
He is too incompetent to be a leader, in which case he should be replaced. By continuously replacing the leaders who create confusing documents, we will eventually have leaders that we can understand.

2) Deception
He deliberately created a confusing document in an attempt to deceive us. Perhaps he is faking ignorance of some crime or issue, or perhaps he is trying to confuse us into believing his reasoning or evidence is valid. Regardless of his motive, he should be considered a criminal for trying to deceive us.


   • The censorship may be worse in other nations

Keep in mind that my criticism of the USA is simply because I live here and am familiar with it, not because other nations are superior. Actually, many other nations have governments that seem much worse in some respects. For example, although I don't know much about Thailand, this report says that a court in Thailand sent a woman to jail for 43 years for insulting the King of Thailand, and this occurred in January 2021, not the Middle Ages.

The United Nations claims that Thailand has a serious problem with human trafficking and sex slavery, and this site claims that "ladyboys" are in "every major city". Years ago a Norwegian man, Trond Halvorsen, tried to convince me to take a trip to Thailand to have sex, which I consider to be additional evidence that Thailand is an international destination for weird and illegal sex. However, despite all of the corruption, crime, pedophilia, human trafficking, and suffering in Thailand, the Thai courts are more concerned with censoring, suppressing, and torturing the people who criticize their monarchy!

The courts in Thailand seem to be much more corrupt than the US courts, but that is not something we should boast about. I often hear Americans responding to criticism with a remark similar to: "But the USA is better than other nations!" That is not a valid reason to do nothing about our corruption and inefficiency. That is analogous to a teenage boy who is told to clean his room, and he responds: "But the boy who lives next door never cleans his room, and he occasionally rapes his mother, so be grateful that I am better than him."

   • Who is whipping people into a frenzy with a big lie?

During the impeachment trial of Donald Trump in February 2021, Representative Jamie Raskin said that Trump "assembled, inflamed and incited his followers to descend upon the Capitol". How many voters can make a wise decision about whether the journalists and government officials are correct that Trump "whipped his supporters into a frenzy with the 'big lie' that their votes had been stolen, and urged them to fight"?

I would accuse the Democrats and journalists of whipping people into a frenzy with the 'big lie' that the election was honest.

   • Who is a peaceful protester and who is a terrorist?

In January 2021, Joe Biden gave a speech in which he made a lot of accusations, such as claiming that the people who had gathered around the White House on 6 January 2021 were not "protesters":

They weren't protesters — don't dare call them protesters. They were a riotous mob of insurrectionists, domestic terrorists.

When the BLM and Antifa groups protest in the streets, they are "peaceful protesters", but when Trump supporters have a rally or protest, no matter how peaceful, they are "terrorists" and "extremists".

I would accuse the journalists and Joe Biden of "slandering" people when they refer to them as terrorists, insurrectionists, and extremists. However, our legal system allows them to do that, and so do most of the voters.

How many voters can make a sensible decision about when a journalist or government official is giving us an intelligent analysis of a person, and when they are slandering their critics?

   • How many people notice the censorship of cameras?

When the 9/11 attack occurred, the FBI and other government officials confiscated security camera videos and other cameras. We were allowed to see only the few photos and video segments that they chose for us. For example, instead of allowing us to see the video from the Pentagon security cameras, they showed us only five frames, and it is possible that they edited those frames, or made them blurry.

Likewise, there are a lot of security cameras in Washington DC, and a lot of cell phone cameras, but we have been allowed to see only a few video segments of the "riotous mob" at the US Capitol on 6 January 2021. How many voters noticed or cared that most of the videos are hidden from us?

   • How many people notice the bias in news reports?

A free enterprise system expects the consumers to make wise decisions about which journalists are providing the most accurate news, but how many consumers can see a difference in the way the journalists reported the five deaths that occurred at the US Capitol on 6 January 2021 compared to how they report the deaths of black criminals, such as Rodney King or George Floyd? Furthermore, of the consumers who notice a bias, how many of them care enough to discuss it with their friends, or cancel their subscriptions to the deceptive media companies?

This article has a photo that shows people beating a policeman, and the event is described as "an unidentified police officer is beaten by a mob...during the riot." How many consumers can see a difference in how the journalists reported the beating of that police officer compared to how they reported the beating of Rodney King and other black criminals?

Two police officers committed suicide in response to the Capitol "riot", but the journalists don't show any interest in investigating why they would want to commit suicide, or whether they were murdered.

That article also claims that the FBI was expecting violence that day but did nothing to stop it. And in this article the lawyer for Thomas Caldwell, one of the "rioters", says that he has a top secret security clearance and had been a section chief for the FBI for about a year. However, the journalists do not consider the possibility that the "riot" was a false flag operation arranged by the FBI and/or other supporters of Biden.




“Then I yelled out 'MAGA', and I convinced some of the gullible fools to throw rocks at the police. Now the public thinks the Trump supporters are violent maniacs!”

The journalists avoid bringing attention to the concepts of a "false flag operation" and a "wolf in sheep's clothing" because those tricks are most successful when people are ignorant of them. If more people understood those tricks, a lot of people would figure out that the 9/11 attack was a "Jew in Muslim Clothing" trick, and that the attack on the USS Liberty was the failure of a "Jew in Egyptian Clothing" trick.

We allow incompetent people to control our future

A democracy requires the majority of voters to make wise decisions about our government leaders and policies, but most people have trouble taking care of themselves and their family. It is understandable for teenagers and young adults to be confused and make lots of decisions that they regret, but by the time people are 50 or 60 years old they should have figured out how to set up a nice life for themselves. Unfortunately, most of the older people are still making decisions that they regret because of their lack of interest in looking critically at themselves, thinking, and/or their inability to control their emotional cravings.

It is absurd to expect people who make a mess of their own life to make wise decisions about the even more complex problems of a modern nation. And how can we expect people who have trouble resisting crime opportunities to provide us with an effective legal system?

The article with the transcript of Biden's speech claims that one of Biden's goals is "restoring the reputation of the Justice Department". How many voters are capable of making a wise decision about whether the Biden administration will truly restore the reputation of the Justice Department, or if they will modify the Justice Department to make it easier for them to arrest and censor their critics?

How many voters can make a wise decision about whether the people who are accused of "democracy denial" are truly our enemies and should be suppressed, censored, or arrested?

Millions of voters are mimicking the deceptive remarks that they heard on the television news. Allowing those people to determine our future is as stupid as allowing parrots to determine our future.

Anybody who believes that a democracy can provide us with high quality leadership, or an effective legal system, should be disqualified from voting.

We must raise standards for voters, and other leaders, but that requires finding a lot of people who have the courage to experiment with culture.


Explain instead of censor

We demand that athletes compete fairly, but not our leaders

We design athletic contests with quality control procedures to reduce cheating. For example, some athletic contests require the athletes to submit to drug tests, and some contests require cameras so that the judges can make more accurate decisions. The rhythmic gymnastic contests go even further and allow the athletes to complain about their score, in which case the judges are required to review video of their performance and determine if their score should be adjusted.

Even stupid people can understand the concept that athletic events should be fair, but no society yet applies this concept to other types of contests, such as political, legal, scientific, or economic contests. As a result, every society is allowing incredible levels of cheating in those types of contests, which in turn allows crime networks to dominate our governments, businesses, science policies, and courts. Two examples are climate change and political elections.

   1) Climate change

The people who promote the theory that humans are causing the earth's climate to become warmer as a result of our production of carbon dioxide are trying to censor and suppress their critics. Some of them also slander their critics as "climate change deniers" or "anti-science forces", and some advocate arresting, firing, or punishing their critics.

If a scientist truly had an intelligent theory about climate change, he would not benefit by censoring his critics. Rather, like a talented athlete, he would benefit by setting up a discussion in which he and his critics are given a fair opportunity to explain their opinions and compare them to one another.

A "discussion" can be regarded as a "contest" or "competition" of opinions. If the contest is fair, a truly talented scientist would impress us, and it would expose the flaws and mistakes of the alternative theories.

The people in influential positions should not be allowed to defend a scientific theory through censorship, accusations of "denial", or intimidation. Scientists must defend their opinions through explanations. A scientist who resorts to censorship should be regarded as a liar, criminal, loser, and failure.

   2) Political elections

Compared to an athletic event, there is no quality control in a political election. For example, there is nothing analogous to a referee for our elections. Two problems that result from the lack of referees are:

1) Political candidates can make false remarks without any consequences.
This is most noticeable during the debates when they make contradictory statements. There are no referees to investigate and pass judgment on whether a candidate must edit his remark to make it more accurate.

This is analogous to a school that doesn't bother to pass judgment on whether the students are giving accurate answers to their tests. Instead, the school assumes that every student's answer is equally correct.

2) Nobody can settle accusations of cheating.
If a political candidate, or a voter, suspects that there was cheating in an election, he has to put a lot of time, effort, and money into investigating the election by himself. He has to gather evidence by himself, find witnesses by himself, hire lawyers at his own expense, file a lawsuit, and then hope that a judge will look at the evidence.

This is analogous to a football game in which there are no referees. After the game is over, a player or spectator who suspects that there was cheating would have to spend a lot of his time and money gathering and observing video from cell phones and television companies, interviewing people, hiring a lawyer, file a lawsuit, and then hoping that a judge will look at the evidence.

Intellectual competitions have a greater need for referees than athletic events

When we have a discussion, we put our opinions into a competition. If the discussion is with our friends or relatives, there will not be any referees to settle disputes, and this causes most people to quickly become frustrated, which triggers monkey-like behavior, such as yelling, glaring, and sarcastic noises.

A referee is analogous to a quality control department. The referees are in a leadership position, and they help us to resolve disputes. We need people in that position because we cannot expect people to resolve their differences on their own, mainly because we have different genetic intellectual and emotional characteristics, and partly because we want to give lectures rather than have discussions. An example are disagreements over evolution and creationism. Not many of us are interested in discussing that issue. Rather, we tend to insult people with a difference of opinion.

The dispute between religion and evolution has been resolved to a certain extent by allowing religious organizations to teach creationism, and requiring the public schools to teach evolution. However, that type of solution doesn't work for all problems. For example, we cannot resolve the issue of global warming by letting the global warming supporters pay carbon taxes and letting the rest of us ignore the issue.

There are disputes all the time about the scores in rhythmic gymnastic events, but those events are only for the entertainment of a few people, so it doesn't matter if the disputes are resolved. However, the judges of those athletic events put more effort into trying to resolve disputes than the government officials are doing over issues that are much more important to us, such as the cheating in the 2020 elections.

This Constitution wants to reverse that situation. The Kastron government will have a quality control department to resolve disputes, and to pass judgment on who in an influential position should be replaced. As with the judges of a rhythmic gymnastic event, the quality control officials will respond to complaints from the people about cheating, corruption, inefficiency, and other problems.

We should enjoy other people, not be afraid of them


By restricting the leadership positions to people who encourage exploration, curiosity, and differences of opinion, we will create a social environment that is so relaxing and peaceful that we would feel safe to discuss any issue we please. None of us would be afraid that somebody will become hysterical, violent, or angry over a difference of opinion. None of us would be afraid of being fired from our jobs for expressing an opinion, either, and we would not worry about being insulted as "anti-" something, or a "denier" of something.

Such a relaxing environment would make it easier for us to join conversations, which in turn will help people to socialize, meet new people, form friendships, and learn new things. We would feel so safe around one another that we could get into discussions with strangers.

Furthermore, when people are so well behaved that there is no such thing as a controversial or forbidden issue, then we will have a wider variety of issues to discuss.

In our world today, we are cautious about discussing certain issues in public, and so we end up censoring ourselves. We are especially cautious about making critical remarks. Many people describe this self-censorship as being "polite", but it's more accurate to say that it is appeasing the neurotic, violent, and crude people, and that it is suppressing constructive criticism.

In our world today, people are so intolerant of different opinions that some people advise their friends and family members to avoid discussions of politics and religion. That type of advice encourages people to be fearful and timid rather than curious and adventurous. That is as idiotic as a group of scientists who are so intolerant of differences of opinion that they advise one another to never discuss chemistry or mechanical engineering in public.

Scientists realize that in order for progress to occur, they must be able to discuss their opinions and look critically at their data and conclusions. They cannot be afraid to give constructive criticism, or worry that they might hurt somebody's feelings. However, the majority of people do not understand this concept.

Inhibiting a discussion about a social issue is as detrimental and unacceptable as inhibiting discussions about chemistry or mechanical engineering. Furthermore, arresting a person for Holocaust denial, climate change denial, sexism, or other nonsensical crimes is as detrimental and unacceptable as scientists who want to arrest one another for Big Bang Denial, or Dark Matter Denial.

We deny ourselves lots of interesting conversations

If the people in Kastron can control their emotions well enough to allow people to feel safe to discuss any issue we please, we will get into conversations that we are afraid to discuss today, and through the years those discussions will evolve into issues that none of us have considered yet.

When we start a conversation about an issue, it can lead us to related issues, and those discussions can lead to still other issues. Discussing an issue is like exploring the unknown, or developing new technology, so if we are not afraid to explore the issue, the discussions will eventually lead to issues that we were unaware of.

If we could travel into the distant future, I think we would discover that some of the conversations at lunch and dinner are about issues that we never thought of because we are self-censoring ourselves to such an extent that we keep our conversations limited to a small number of issues.

People today are self-censoring their discussions about religion, evolution, abortion, and hundreds of other issues. If we were living among people who were so tolerant of differences of opinion that we felt comfortable discussing everything, what would the following three issues eventually lead us to?

    1) Will plants evolve to be black?

Are any of the plants continuing their evolution of converting sunlight? If so, some of those plants might evolve to using more of the green light, causing them to become increasingly dark. A billion years from now a photograph of a forest or garden might show the leaves are almost black, and the only colors are in the flowers, bark, fruit, and seeds.

    2) How could galaxies collide?

The people who promote The Big Bang theory claim that the universe began from a tiny point, and then expanded outward, but if that is true, then everything should increase its distance from everything else. There should be no collisions.

So why are astronomers claiming that some galaxies are colliding, and that the Milky Way will eventually collide with Andromeda?

    3) Do you know how long "infinity" is?

An interesting aspect of religion is the concept that the devil will torture people "forever" in hell, and that we will live "forever" in heaven.

If every person that goes to hell is being tortured "forever", that is putting a tremendous burden on the devil. Try to visualize hell, and how it would have to grow larger in size as the number of people increase. If people exist on the earth for the next few billion years, there might eventually be trillions of people in hell. Now try to visualize the devil torturing those people every day, and forever. Would you want that job? I would say the devil would be suffering more than the people in hell.

The concept of spending forever in heaven is just as ridiculous. What would you do each day if you lived "forever" in heaven? Heaven is supposed to be a place where we don't work, suffer, or do anything except float around the clouds. If we actually had to spend forever in heaven, I think that most of us would commit suicide after a few centuries.

I suspect that the belief that we will spend "forever" in heaven or hell was created by people who didn't have a good understanding of the concept of "forever" or "infinity". They probably thought of forever as being a few lifetimes.

How many people understand that if we live forever, our past will always be an insignificantly brief moment in our entire life, even if we could live for a trillion years?

The image to the right might help explain this concept. That is a timeline of the universe. It starts at the beginning of the universe, and it extends forever.

The years that have already passed by are a finite number of years, but since our future is infinite, the billions of years of history will always appear to be an insignificant moment of time compared to the amount of time remaining in the future.

That timeline would be so long that the only way we could see the time period of the dinosaurs would be to zoom in on the microscopic portion at the start of the timeline. As we zoom out, the billions of years of the earth's history become too small to see, and we cannot zoom out enough to see the entire timeline because it is infinite in length.

That timeline assumes that there was a beginning to the universe, but what if there was no beginning? What if the universe has already existed forever? And what if it will continue to exist forever? In that case, we are halfway through the lifetime of the universe, and we will never get beyond halfway.

Or perhaps the timeline for the universe is a loop, (a Mobius strip?), and we will eventually get back to the beginning and repeat the cycle, and forever. Or is the timeline logarithmic, in which case time is speeding up, and will eventually be going so fast that the universe self-destructs? Or is time slowing down, in which case it eventually stops?

It is possible that some scientists don't have a good understanding of infinity. This could explain why they are attracted to The Big Bang Theory. As with the biblical story of creation, the Big Bang Theory avoids the concept of infinity.

Both of those theories claim that the universe appeared suddenly from nothing, thereby avoiding the confusing issue of what was here before the universe, and whether it has existed for an infinite amount of time. Both theories also ignore the issue of whether the universe is infinite in size.

If the universe is going to exist forever, and if the scientists are correct that all of the stars will burn out after a few tens of billions of years, then a few trillion years from now the entire universe will be a completely black wasteland of frozen stars and planets. However, trillions of people will still be floating around in heaven, and trillions of other people will continue to be tortured in hell.

Or will heaven and/or hell also become dark and frozen? Or does heaven and/or hell have their own power sources that will supply them with energy forever?

Another possibility is that galaxies are continuously forming from space, evolving, and converting back into space, and doing so forever, similar to how eddies are constantly forming, changing, and vanishing in the ocean, as in the image to the right of some Gulfstream eddies.

According to Harvard’s "Top Astronomer", Avi Loeb, there is intelligent life everywhere in the universe, which is certainly possible, but there is more supporting evidence for Noah's Ark.

I suspect that the creation of life requires such an unusual combination of events that it is an extremely rare event.

It is even possible that getting life started requires a planet with a certain sized moon at a certain distance in order to create stress fractures in the surface, thereby releasing minerals or increasing the surface area for catalytic reactions.

Of the planets in which life gets started, how many of them get past the stage of bacteria? In order for intelligent animals to form, the solar system has to provide certain conditions for billions of years, but that might be very unusual. For example, the sun might have to start cooling down in a certain manner at the same moment that certain chemicals start to form.

When chemists create dyes, plastics, vitamins, vaccines, and other chemicals, they don't simply mix a bunch of molecules in a pot and then wait for those molecules to spontaneously create something new. Instead, chemists have to do a lot of complex operations, and they need precise control over pressure, temperature, humidity, and other conditions.

Getting life started may require a set of procedures that is more complex than anything the chemists are doing right now, and the chances that such complex procedures occur by themselves may be so incredibly small that we are the first intelligent life to have formed.

Billions of years from now our ancestors will have to leave the solar system. They might create lots of gigantic spaceships that are the size of a small city, and start traveling around the universe in different directions to find another solar system. After trillions of years, our descendants may be all over the universe, but will they encounter any intelligent life?

Animals are aware only of the present moment

The discussion of infinity was not entirely for entertainment. I think the difficulty people have with infinity is because we inherited the mind of a monkey.

Some animals show a slight ability to be aware of the past and to predict the future, such as when a cat predicts that when a mouse runs behind an object it will probably appear on the other side of the object, but other than making those type of predictions, animals do not contemplate the past or the future.

Humans are much more aware of the past and future, but a lot of people prefer to ignore both of them. We have expressions for this attitude, such as "Enjoy the Moment", "Embrace The Moment", and "Focus on the Present". Those remarks are regarded as "inspirational", and this document describes 93 of them as "awesome".

Some websites promote this remark by Stephen Richards, who some people describe as an author of "inspirational" or "self-help" books:
When you live for every second, tomorrow doesn’t matter!

Some websites claim that Buddha gave the advice:
Do not dwell in the past, do not dream of the future, concentrate the mind on the present moment.

This person claims that Buddha's remark was not translated correctly, but it doesn't matter because the point I want to make is that lots of people are attracted to the concept of ignoring the past and future, and that this attitude could be described as the attitude of an animal. It is also similar to Marquis de Sade's attitude of do whatever feels good.

Our prehistoric ancestors did not have to pay much attention to the past or the future because their lives were virtually the same every day. They could do whatever their emotions pleased, just like an animal. However, in a modern society, we are not being "inspirational" when we encourage people to ignore the past and the future. Rather, we are encouraging detrimental behavior because:
1) It encourages us to do whatever feels good with no regards to the future consequences to ourselves or other people.
2) It encourages us to ignore our past rather than analyze it, learn from it, and improve our future.

The people who ignore the past and future are going to behave as if they are suffering from Alzheimer's. An example are the people who attended the Trump rallies. They had so little interest in analyzing the past that they never noticed that Trump was not keeping his promises, they were not learning anything new from him, and he was not "draining the swamp". Instead, for four years they listened to virtually the same speech, and they chanted the same slogans over and over, such as "Lock her up" and "U-S-A", just as if they were Alzheimer's patients.

Of course, to be fair to Trump, the people in influential positions are involved with a secretive war, so Trump and many of his supporters may have been accomplishing a lot more than we realize. However, from the point of view of the public, Trump was doing almost nothing, but very few of his supporters noticed or complained about it.

We will support destructive immigration policies if we ignore the past and future

The liberals also ignore the past and the future. An example is how they ignore the effect immigration has on the world. For example, every time a boat with refugees arrives on our beach, or a caravan of migrants arrives at the border, the liberals react as if it is the first time such an event has occurred. They feel sorry for the "underdogs" and let them into the nation. Later, when another group of underdogs arrives, the liberals repeat the same policy of feeling sorry for them and letting them in, just as if it was the first time the event occurred.

If the liberals were to analyze the past and try to predict the future, they would notice some serious problems with their immigration policy, such as:

1) Allowing people to force themselves into our nation is going to encourage other people to force themselves into our nation. Therefore, this can cause the problem to get worse in the future rather than remain steady or decrease.

2) Many of the underdogs never fit into our nation. Perhaps the most common reason is that they had no interest in joining our nation. Rather, they want to live with us because they want access to our food, material wealth, and better living conditions. They don't want to learn our language, or adapt to our holiday celebrations, clothing styles, or laws. They are "human rats", not citizens, friends, or team members.

3) Unrestricted immigration will eventually result in overcrowding.

4) The unrestricted immigration of human rats, as opposed to people who want to join the nation, will eventually result in the nation being dominated by the culture of those rats.

As a result of our idiotic immigration policies, the USA and Western European nations will eventually become as crowded as Hong Kong, and dominated by the poor people from Africa, South America, and Asia.

Many liberals justify their immigration policies by boasting that they are kind and generous people who want to share the wealth of the USA, but it should be noted that they do not want to share their wealth. They want to share other people's wealth.

For example, millions of liberals in the USA have houses and plots of land that are large enough to hold several migrant families, but they do not want to share their homes with the migrants. Furthermore, if they were forced to allow the migrant families to live in their home, they would demand that the migrants speak English and follow their rules and culture. They would not allow the migrants to continue to speak a foreign language, and follow a foreign culture.

The Communists have provided us with a tremendous amount of supporting evidence that the liberals have a selfish, hypocritical attitude. As with Marquis de Sade, the liberals tend to do whatever makes themselves feel good, without being concerned about the effect they will have on other people. For example, they support sharing the wealth when it is other people's wealth; they support diversity in other people's neighborhoods; and they support sharing the chores when other people do the work.

The liberals boast about their noble qualities in order to titillate themselves, and to impress us, not because they want to give us an accurate description of their behavior. Perhaps the most obvious example of this are the liberals who boast about how they support freedom of speech while demanding the censorship, arrest, or rehabilitation of the people who disagree with them.

Some of the liberals who boast about supporting freedom of speech are too mentally defective to notice their hypocrisy, but some of them are trying to deceive us. For example, I think the liberals at Twitter and Facebook boast about supporting freedom of speech in order to deceive us into accepting their censorship.

This issue is similar to that of one of my earliest documents, in which I pointed out that criminals can get away with their crimes by pretending to be crime investigators. An example of this deception is when a pedophile gets involved with investigating pedophilia in order to fool us into believing that he is not a pedophile. How many voters can understand this concept? And how many are fooled by it?

How many people are well suited to this modern era?

The document that lists "93 Awesome Quotes About Enjoy the Moment" starts with such remarks as:

Some people dwell on their past, some other anxious about their future.
Don’t suffer from your miserable past or excessively worry for your future, enjoy the moment....

Why do people "dwell" on their past? Why do people "worry about" their future? That type of behavior is irrational. The most sensible thing for each of us to do is analyze our past and look for ways to improve our future. It is idiotic to dwell, worry about, or ignore our past or future.

The people who lack the desire and/or ability to learn from their past and improve their lives have a mind that is similar to that of an animal. They are not suited to our modern world. More important to this series of documents, they will not be effective leaders.

A poll that asked people why they were having trouble getting to sleep at night claims that 28% said that caffeine was keeping them awake. If that poll is accurate, there are a lot of people who realize that caffeine is keeping them awake, but they continue to make the mistake of having too much caffeine at night. Why don't they learn from their mistakes and improve their life? Why would they make the same mistake over and over?

Caffeine does not stop my brother from getting to sleep, but I noticed that it keeps me awake, so I avoid it from the afternoon onward.Why am I capable of learning to avoid caffeine at night but not millions of other people? What is different about me?

A person who makes the same mistakes over and over is not likely to be a useful leader for society. Rather, he is a person who cannot analyze his life, learn from his mistakes, or find ways to improve his life. Another way to express that concept is that a person who cannot provide leadership to himself is not likely to be able to provide leadership to any of us.

This Constitution wants to restrict the top leadership positions to the men who have demonstrated an ability to improve their lives. They should show an ability to reduce the mistakes they make rather than repeat the mistakes. They should also show an ability to improve their opinions through the years.

The conservatives are impressed by a man who retains the same opinions throughout his life. They refer to those men as having "stability", and "never wavering". That attitude was desirable for our prehistoric ancestors because they lived in an environment that did not change from one generation to the next.

However, in our modern era, children are picking up lots of conflicting and idiotic information, and technology is changing rapidly. Adults today should occasionally look critically at the information they picked up, and their goals in life. For example, as we learn more about food and nutrition, we need to analyze our diet, and as we learn more about exercise and sleep, we need to analyze our activities and sleep habits. An adult today who is "stable" and "never wavers" is a stupid monkey who cannot improve his life. We even need to look critically at the expressions we pick up, such as starting every sentence with "So", or "That being said".

Why don't we improve our world?

As I write this document (January/February 2021), some cities in the US and Europe are having problems with snow, ice, and wind, such as this and this from icy roads. Every year our cities suffer from the same weather problems. If we cannot deal with routine weather conditions, how are we going to deal with the more complex problems of crime, corruption, overcrowding, and genetic disorders?

We cannot prevent or control hurricanes or tornadoes, but it is easy for us to deal with routine storms. For example, we have the technology and resources to create cities with underground trains, and to create paths between the buildings that are enclosed in glass or plastic panels to protect us from the weather, as in the photo below. We could enjoy walks and bicycle rides throughout the city all year, even during the most fierce winter storm.



We could also enclose swimming pools, fields of grass, and gardens
so that we have recreational activities all year, as in the photo below.



Humans have enough intelligence to create beautiful cities that protect us from the weather and insects, and which provide us with spectacular parks, factories, office buildings, and recreational facilities. We could enjoy the snow, rain, and hail rather than suffer from them.

We can start the process of creating better cities and improving our lives as soon as we find a large group of people who have the courage to experiment with new culture, the desire and ability to work in a team for the benefit of all, and the self-control to refrain from cheating, raping, and lying.

Can you find the initiative and
self-control to become one of those pioneers?